6 ms·

Programming Language Checklist (2011)

45 points by njitram 3y ago

EuAndreh 3y ago
We have "No language spec" and "The implementation is the spec". Sooo, languages with a spec are strictly superior?
pharmakom 3y ago
Quite funny, but I want people to advance the state of the art. Does C++ / Java / Python really represent the high water mark of programming languages? I sure hope not…
- urbandw311er 3y ago
  Surely C# superceded C++ as the better example?
  - pharmakom 3y ago
    C# is more like Java than C++
mjburgess 3y ago
imv, we're still missing a C replacement-successor There should be a language about as simple as c, with a few additional keywords for safety (type and memory), and a modern standard library -- that works basically everywhere C works, and is backwards compatible with C. ie., we're missing --C++ I think all the supposed successors have approached the problem from the lang-design pov, where for C, it needs to be from-existing-compilers-and-tools pov. I suspect there's a route to C v2 by starting with the C std, and gcc/clang, then working "forwards". Similar to cppfront for C++. ie., it needs to compile 99% of all existing C code, it needs to compile to 90% of all in-use platform for C, etc.
- vbitz 3y ago
  What would be great is a language that does to C what TypeScript did to JavaScript. C but with better safety and additional developer ergonomics would be amazing. Part of the problem is I think you would need to depart from the traditional C build system to get the most benefits. That will be hard for adoption.
- cyco130 3y ago
  You may find Zig interesting: https://ziglang.org https://ziglang.org. The language is not C compatible but the tooling can compile C and C++ without hassle.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    i'm aware of zig, which is why i included the criteria above that i take to rule it out. i do think the successor should be src-compt with C
- dailykoder 3y ago
  >There should be a language about as simple as c, I just recently started to dip my feet into golang and it feels like Go could've been something like that. With it's runtime and garbage collection that obviously disqualifies itself, but it's a really simple and fun language, I think. Something like that as a systems programming language with """easy""" memory management would be tremendous (maybe Zig is like that, but I haven't tried that out yet).
- ramon156 3y ago
  Carbon was a possible successor, only time will tell
- pharmakom 3y ago
  Zig, Odin and Jai are the main contenders. I don’t think backward C compatibility is a good idea, since the C syntax has issues. Instead a transpilation tool from C could be built.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
blauditore 3y ago
This is kind of accurate and funny, but also feels a bit like criticizing the drawing of a 4-year-old kid. :) At least when a language is just someone's hobby project, or some exploration in research.
- jzm2k 3y ago
  Isn't this criticizing the discussion of (new) programming languages, not the new languages themselves?
  - blauditore 3y ago
    Ah, maybe. FWIW, I actually think syntax is sometimes the hard part about programming, especially when not working with a language frequently. I never worked much with C++, but occasionally come across it. Whenever this happens, it feels like things could be more readable, but maybe I'm biased.
ivolimmen 3y ago
Slashdot answer. Like this one: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=218300&cid=17719106 https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=218300&cid=1771910... Love these responses.
xnx 3y ago
I often wonder what it is about the programmer mindset/psychology that curses such constant reinvention(/reinvention?). Is this an unavoidable side effect of Moore's law? Will we settle on just a few languages in the future? Will llms allow easy translation from less popular languages?
pharmakom 3y ago
To me what’s missing is a functional programming language that is statically typed and has an extreme emphasis on performance. C++ meets Haskell, but not terrible.
- funcDropShadow 3y ago
  That is OCaml. Not that I claim OCaml is extremely fast, but it has a very predictable performance. Which is imho even more important than being the fastest in certain benchmark problems.
BoppreH 3y ago
I've tried updating it to 2024: https://gist.github.com/boppreh/3b88231b7af15af54d292963f3d79b02 https://gist.github.com/boppreh/3b88231b7af15af54d292963f3d7...
librasteve 3y ago
what we need is a gradually typed lazy / eager language that helps to combine functional, imperative, concurrent and object-oriented styles, allows functions to use method syntax (and vice versa), with (and without) sigils & twigils, and an entirely new regex syntax that packs a whole ragbag of weird stuff such as unicode graphemes, grammars, junctions, allomorphs, sequences, hyper (>>) and (Z/R) metaoperators, sets, bags and mixes, coercion types and a MOP then we can check all the boxes (aka raku)

45 points by njitram 3y ago

We have "No language spec" and "The implementation is the spec". Sooo, languages with a spec are strictly superior?

Quite funny, but I want people to advance the state of the art. Does C++ / Java / Python really represent the high water mark of programming languages? I sure hope not…

urbandw311er 3y ago
Surely C# superceded C++ as the better example?
- pharmakom 3y ago
  C# is more like Java than C++

mjburgess 3y ago

imv, we're still missing a C replacement-successor There should be a language about as simple as c, with a few additional keywords for safety (type and memory), and a modern standard library -- that works basically everywhere C works, and is backwards compatible with C. ie., we're missing --C++ I think all the supposed successors have approached the problem from the lang-design pov, where for C, it needs to be from-existing-compilers-and-tools pov. I suspect there's a route to C v2 by starting with the C std, and gcc/clang, then working "forwards". Similar to cppfront for C++. ie., it needs to compile 99% of all existing C code, it needs to compile to 90% of all in-use platform for C, etc.

vbitz 3y ago
What would be great is a language that does to C what TypeScript did to JavaScript. C but with better safety and additional developer ergonomics would be amazing. Part of the problem is I think you would need to depart from the traditional C build system to get the most benefits. That will be hard for adoption.
cyco130 3y ago
You may find Zig interesting: https://ziglang.org https://ziglang.org. The language is not C compatible but the tooling can compile C and C++ without hassle.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  i'm aware of zig, which is why i included the criteria above that i take to rule it out. i do think the successor should be src-compt with C
dailykoder 3y ago
>There should be a language about as simple as c, I just recently started to dip my feet into golang and it feels like Go could've been something like that. With it's runtime and garbage collection that obviously disqualifies itself, but it's a really simple and fun language, I think. Something like that as a systems programming language with """easy""" memory management would be tremendous (maybe Zig is like that, but I haven't tried that out yet).
ramon156 3y ago
Carbon was a possible successor, only time will tell
pharmakom 3y ago
Zig, Odin and Jai are the main contenders. I don’t think backward C compatibility is a good idea, since the C syntax has issues. Instead a transpilation tool from C could be built.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

blauditore 3y ago

This is kind of accurate and funny, but also feels a bit like criticizing the drawing of a 4-year-old kid. :) At least when a language is just someone's hobby project, or some exploration in research.

jzm2k 3y ago
Isn't this criticizing the discussion of (new) programming languages, not the new languages themselves?
- blauditore 3y ago
  Ah, maybe. FWIW, I actually think syntax is sometimes the hard part about programming, especially when not working with a language frequently. I never worked much with C++, but occasionally come across it. Whenever this happens, it feels like things could be more readable, but maybe I'm biased.

ivolimmen 3y ago

Slashdot answer. Like this one: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=218300&cid=17719106 https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=218300&cid=1771910... Love these responses.

xnx 3y ago

I often wonder what it is about the programmer mindset/psychology that curses such constant reinvention(/reinvention?). Is this an unavoidable side effect of Moore's law? Will we settle on just a few languages in the future? Will llms allow easy translation from less popular languages?

pharmakom 3y ago

To me what’s missing is a functional programming language that is statically typed and has an extreme emphasis on performance. C++ meets Haskell, but not terrible.

funcDropShadow 3y ago
That is OCaml. Not that I claim OCaml is extremely fast, but it has a very predictable performance. Which is imho even more important than being the fastest in certain benchmark problems.

BoppreH 3y ago

I've tried updating it to 2024: https://gist.github.com/boppreh/3b88231b7af15af54d292963f3d79b02 https://gist.github.com/boppreh/3b88231b7af15af54d292963f3d7...

librasteve 3y ago

what we need is a gradually typed lazy / eager language that helps to combine functional, imperative, concurrent and object-oriented styles, allows functions to use method syntax (and vice versa), with (and without) sigils & twigils, and an entirely new regex syntax that packs a whole ragbag of weird stuff such as unicode graphemes, grammars, junctions, allomorphs, sequences, hyper (>>) and (Z/R) metaoperators, sets, bags and mixes, coercion types and a MOP then we can check all the boxes (aka raku)