The seven programming ur-languages (2022)

Post by pjmlp » Sun, Apr 19, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

ang_cire wrote: post #64

pjmlp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Python introduced new style classes, it also became a pure OOP language, even though it might not look like it at "Hello World" level, all primitive types have become objects as well. I love to point this out to OOP haters, >>> type(42) >>> dir(42) ['__abs__', '__add__', '__and__', '__bool__', '__ceil__', '__class__', '__delattr__', '__dir__', '__divmod__', '__doc__', '__eq__', '__float__', '__floor__', '__floo…

This is very cool, and I did not know this. Thank you! I wonder if my formal university python training predated this change (~2010), or if the professors were themselves unaware of this.

Post by tialaramex » Sun, Apr 19, 2026, 5:50 PM UTC

steve_gh wrote: post #25

One correction I'd make to the article's taxonomy: Ruby is an object oriented language not an Algol. Its inspiration is Smalltalk, and much of the standard library naming comes from that route (eg collect rather than map). Ruby is object oriented from the ground up. Everything (and I do mean everything) is an object, and method call is conceived as passing messages to objects. While Ruby is most often compared to Pyt…

Post by solomonb » Sun, Apr 19, 2026, 6:07 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #13

I might add another class of languages: those intended to express proofs, via the Curry-Howard correspondence. Lean is a primary example here. This could be considered a subclass of functional languages but it might be different enough to warrant a separate class. In particular, the purpose of these programs is to be checked; execution is only secondary.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 19, 2026, 6:10 PM UTC

nextaccountic wrote: post #27

armchairhacker wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theorem proving and complex types are like extensions on an otherwise ordinary language: - Agda, Idris, etc. are functional languages extended with complex types - Isabelle, Lean, etc. are functional languages extended with complex types and unreadable interactive proofs - Dafny etc. are imperative languages extended with theorems and hints - ACL2 is a LISP with theorems and hints Related, typeclasses are effectively…

> Agda, Idris, etc. are functional languages extended with complex types I think they are not. No amount of type level extensions can turn a regular functional language like Haskell into something suitable for theorem proving. Adding dependent types to Haskell, for example, doesn't suffice. To build a theorem prover you need to take away some capability (namely, the ability to do general recursion - the base language…

Post by solomonb » Sun, Apr 19, 2026, 6:23 PM UTC

nextaccountic wrote: post #27

armchairhacker wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theorem proving and complex types are like extensions on an otherwise ordinary language: - Agda, Idris, etc. are functional languages extended with complex types - Isabelle, Lean, etc. are functional languages extended with complex types and unreadable interactive proofs - Dafny etc. are imperative languages extended with theorems and hints - ACL2 is a LISP with theorems and hints Related, typeclasses are effectively…

> Agda, Idris, etc. are functional languages extended with complex types I think they are not. No amount of type level extensions can turn a regular functional language like Haskell into something suitable for theorem proving. Adding dependent types to Haskell, for example, doesn't suffice. To build a theorem prover you need to take away some capability (namely, the ability to do general recursion - the base language…