Re: Complete the checklist! :o)
On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 21:36:30 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: [X] stack-based Probably not what you thought.
Re: Complete the checklist! :o)
On 5 August 2014 22:34, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 10:14:21AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html Alright, I'll have a go at it: --- Programming Language Checklist by [1]Colin McMillen, [2]Jason Reed, and [3]Elly Jones. You appear to be advocating a new: [ ] functional [X] imperative [X] object-oriented [X] procedural [X] stack-based [X] multi-paradigm [X] lazy [X] eager [X] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed [ ] pure [ ] impure [ ] non-hygienic [ ] visual [ ] beginner-friendly [ ] non-programmer-friendly [ ] completely incomprehensible programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work. You appear to believe that: [ ] Syntax is what makes programming difficult [X] Garbage collection is free[ ] Computers have infinite memory [X] Nobody really needs: [ ] concurrency [X] a REPL [X] debugger support [X] IDE support [ ] I/O [ ] to interact with code not written in your language I resent you ticking the debugger support box. ;-) But is is true that debugging comes as a second class citizen. By way of example, currently if you want to make a break point at an optimisation pass in GCC, you have to break at '(anonymous namespace)::pass_::execute' - this is post conversion to C++! Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that: [X] Your complex sample code would be one line in: _APL :-)___ [X] We already have an unsafe imperative language [X] We already have a safe imperative OO language [X] We already have a safe statically-typed eager functional language [ ] You have reinvented Lisp but worse [ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse [ ] You have reinvented Java but worse [ ] You have reinvented C++ but worse At least you didn't tick these three bottom boxes. ;) Iain.
Re: Complete the checklist! :o)
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 07:44:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 5 August 2014 22:34, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 10:14:21AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu [ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse What could be worse than Javascript? Seriously.
Re: Complete the checklist! :o)
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 08:12:57 UTC, eles wrote: What could be worse than Javascript? Seriously. Serious questions call for serious answers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbolge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERCAL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS
Re: Complete the checklist! :o)
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 08:16:56 UTC, Brian Schott wrote: On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 08:12:57 UTC, eles wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbolge (=`#9]~6ZY32Vx/4Rs+0No-Jk)Fh}|Bcy?`=*z]Kw%oG4UUS0/@-ejc(:'8dc (no, I wasn't cursing you!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERCAL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS OMG, this one is not intended to be a joke! Thanks for the answer. It is always useful to learn new things...
Re: Complete the checklist! :o)
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 08:44:57 UTC, eles wrote: OMG, this one is not intended to be a joke! http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/A_Case_of_the_MUMPS.aspx http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Avoiding-MUMPS--Arcadius.aspx I interviewed with this company once. (I'm not the one who wrote in to TDWTF) When we started talking about MUMPS I was very tempted to do this: http://i.imgur.com/ZfIH6Dd.gif
Re: Complete the checklist! :o)
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 09:39:10 UTC, Brian Schott wrote: On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 08:44:57 UTC, eles wrote: OMG, this one is not intended to be a joke! http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/A_Case_of_the_MUMPS.aspx http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Avoiding-MUMPS--Arcadius.aspx I interviewed with this company once. (I'm not the one who wrote in to TDWTF) When we started talking about MUMPS I was very tempted to do this: http://i.imgur.com/ZfIH6Dd.gif Impressive is the least I can say. I really look forward for Managed extensions for MUMPS by guessWho Inc.
Re: Complete the checklist! :o)
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 09:39:10 UTC, Brian Schott wrote: On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 08:44:57 UTC, eles wrote: OMG, this one is not intended to be a joke! http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/A_Case_of_the_MUMPS.aspx http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Avoiding-MUMPS--Arcadius.aspx I interviewed with this company once. (I'm not the one who wrote in to TDWTF) When we started talking about MUMPS I was very tempted to do this: http://i.imgur.com/ZfIH6Dd.gif Oh, I have a friend who works at Epic. ;) He gave me a tour of their campus last year; it's really super bonkers, considering what they do: http://jgweb.sx3.atl.publicus.com/storyimage/JG/20101231/ARTICLES/312319978/EP/1/2/EP-312319978.jpg The filled-in part of the backwards S on the left side is their company auditorium. It seats about 5,000 (IIRC), but they're building a new one because _it's not big enough_. I believe the new one (not pictured) was built into the hill along the bottom of the photo. I hear they've been doing more VB and C# lately, incidentally. -Wyatt
Re: Complete the checklist! :o)
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 08:16:56 UTC, Brian Schott wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS Ah, I remember, Caché ObjectScript, a superset of MUMPS is a scripting language for Caché database which InterSystems claims to be the fastest object-oriented database.
Complete the checklist! :o)
http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html Andrei
Re: Complete the checklist! :o)
On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 10:14:21AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html Alright, I'll have a go at it: --- Programming Language Checklist by [1]Colin McMillen, [2]Jason Reed, and [3]Elly Jones. You appear to be advocating a new: [ ] functional [X] imperative [X] object-oriented [X] procedural [X] stack-based [X] multi-paradigm [X] lazy [X] eager [X] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed [ ] pure [ ] impure [ ] non-hygienic [ ] visual [ ] beginner-friendly [ ] non-programmer-friendly [ ] completely incomprehensible programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work. You appear to believe that: [ ] Syntax is what makes programming difficult [X] Garbage collection is free[ ] Computers have infinite memory [X] Nobody really needs: [ ] concurrency [X] a REPL [X] debugger support [X] IDE support [ ] I/O [ ] to interact with code not written in your language [ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII [X] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy [X] Convincing programmers to adopt a new language will be easy [ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a language-specific IDE will be easy [ ] Programmers love writing lots of boilerplate [X] Specifying behaviors as undefined means that programmers won't rely on them [ ] Spooky action at a distance makes programming more fun Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks): [X] comprehensible syntax [ ] semicolons [ ] significant whitespace [X] macros [ ] implicit type conversion [X] explicit casting [X] type inference [X] goto [X] exceptions [X] closures [ ] tail recursion [ ] coroutines [X] reflection [ ] subtyping [ ] multiple inheritance [X] operator overloading [X] algebraic datatypes [ ] recursive types [ ] polymorphic types [ ] covariant array typing [X] monads [X] dependent types [ ] infix operators [X] nested comments [X] multi-line strings [X] regexes [ ] call-by-value [ ] call-by-name [ ] call-by-reference [ ] call-cc The following philosophical objections apply: [ ] Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write Hello, World! [ ] Programmers should not develop RSI from writing Hello, World! [ ] The most significant program written in your language is its own compiler [X] The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler [X] No language spec [X] The implementation is the spec [ ] The implementation is closed-source [ ] covered by patents [ ] not owned by you [ ] Your type system is unsound [ ] Your language cannot be unambiguously parsed [ ] a proof of same is attached [ ] invoking this proof crashes the compiler [X] The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google [ ] Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C [ ] Compiled languages will never be extensible [ ] Writing a compiler that understands English is AI-complete [ ] Your language relies on an optimization which has never been shown possible [ ] There are less than 100 programmers on Earth smart enough to use your language [ ] takes exponential time [X] _The color of the bikeshed__ is known to be undecidable Your implementation has the following flaws: [ ] CPUs do not work that way [ ] RAM does not work that way [ ] VMs do not work that way [ ] Compilers do not work that way [ ] Compilers cannot work that way [ ] Shift-reduce conflicts in parsing seem to be resolved using rand() [ ] You require the compiler to be present at runtime [X] You require the language runtime to be present at compile-time [X] Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable [ ] Dangerous behavior is only a warning [X] The compiler crashes if you look at it funny [ ] The VM crashes if you look at it funny [ ] You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques [ ] You don't seem to understand basic systems programming [ ] You don't seem to understand pointers [ ] You don't seem to understand functions Additionally, your marketing has the following problems: [X] Unsupported claims of increased productivity [X] Unsupported claims of greater ease of use [ ] Obviously rigged benchmarks [ ] Graphics, simulation, or crypto benchmarks where your code just calls handwritten assembly through your FFI [ ] String-processing benchmarks where you just call PCRE [ ] Matrix-math benchmarks where you just call BLAS [X] Noone really believes that your language is faster than: [X] assembly [X] C [X] FORTRAN [X] Java [ ] Ruby [ ] Prolog [ ] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification [ ] Rejection of orthodox systems programming without justification [ ] Rejection of orthodox algorithmic theory without justification [ ] Rejection of basic computer science
