11–20 of 70 posts
About ten years ago, a similar checklist was the default response to proposed solutions to spam problems. And then someone wrote a proposal that checked many of the boxes on that list, but had the odd feature of actually working quite well. I think that guy quit went on to start a news web site. I guess he was discouraged by the checklist.
They should add this one too: [ ] the language name sounds too much like clojure, closure, clozure, clojurescript or clojureclr
[ ] the name is a common word, a single character, or
two characters, one of them not easily pronounceable,
and you are neither a demi-god nor a multi-billion-
dollar company.Some new things fail because of obvious flaws. Some fail because of non-obvious flaws. A very few things succeed despite both kinds. Nothing succeeds because it's perfect-- and that includes every programming language we use today.
If there's one thing HN drills into our heads, it's that failure is the only path to success. Yes, your new programming language is very unlikely to take off. It might be for reasons that occurred to this one dude, it might not. Either way, failing to make a new programming language is one of the best ways to come to understand the decisions that went into the development of the ones that succeeded.
There are useful criticisms to be made. "Here are some things you probably haven't thought of. Here are some projects you probably aren't aware of." Many people have managed to write such essays quite lucidly, without discouraging people from experimenting with failure on their own.
"You won't succeed because you suck, and I hate you," which (s/snark//g) is all I read here, is completely unhelpful. Cleverly though it may be written out, and apropos as it may be on a programming humor blog somewhere, it's antithetical to everything HN is about.
And anyway, none of this stuff applies to MY language.
About ten years ago, a similar checklist was the default response to proposed solutions to spam problems. And then someone wrote a proposal that checked many of the boxes on that list, but had the odd feature of actually working quite well. I think that guy quit went on to start a news web site. I guess he was discouraged by the checklist.
[ ] It is a new programming language.
That's pretty win. I nearly laughed tea through my nose. In particular, this was win: [ ] You have reinvented Lisp but worse [ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse [ ] You have reinvented Java but worse [ ] You have reinvented C++ but worse [ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse [ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification [ ] You have reinvented Brainf*** but non-ironically
The expression "[...] is win" is decidedly not win.
I understand how it gets here, but I wish people wouldn't upvote this kind of pointless pandering. I'm sure it has a place somewhere, but it's not HN. Some new things fail because of obvious flaws. Some fail because of non-obvious flaws. A very few things succeed despite both kinds. Nothing succeeds because it's perfect-- and that includes every programming language we use today. If there's one thing HN drills into o…
Should HN only reserve a place for the other kind of pointless pandering, the one the article mocks?
About ten years ago, a similar checklist was the default response to proposed solutions to spam problems. And then someone wrote a proposal that checked many of the boxes on that list, but had the odd feature of actually working quite well. I think that guy quit went on to start a news web site. I guess he was discouraged by the checklist.
Ironically, he also went on to invent a programming language with many of the same checklist items.
That's pretty win. I nearly laughed tea through my nose. In particular, this was win: [ ] You have reinvented Lisp but worse [ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse [ ] You have reinvented Java but worse [ ] You have reinvented C++ but worse [ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse [ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification [ ] You have reinvented Brainf*** but non-ironically
The expression "[...] is win" is decidedly not win.