[ ] You appear to have a reason to avoid change.
Programming Language Checklist
121–130 of 169 posts
Re: Programming Language Checklist
#122Man, I so need something like this filled out for Blazor, but since it's not expressly a language, it doesn't quite fit. Been arguing against it for a while, half the new projects (from other teams) where I work are using it.
Re: Programming Language Checklist
#123This checklist comes across as incredibly ignorant. We push forward with research into all kinds of things, processors, hardware, mathematics, etc. The fact that PLT should somehow be exempt is silly. New languages coming out that do something different are a testing ground for features, some will become popular, most won't. Sometimes there is a real advantage to writing real world applications in some particular lan…
Woosh This is satire of HN, not an actual checklist
I think GP gets it. This checklist does a great job making several different valid points, and at the heart of them seems to be the fact that there is no Perfect Language. Discovering this checklist helped me a ton back when I was turning down language after language for silly reasons. For example, I'm glad I gave Rust a chance this past month, despite dismissing it a few years ago.
Re: Programming Language Checklist
#124I got an idea for a language where the code in the file format is some intermediary language, which you write with an editor plugin that makes it more human-readable. The editor plugin (in contrast to existing language plugins) also translates the error msgs back to the human-readable code. Just an idea, but I could not get it to fit in the questionaire :)
In SmallTalk you had everything as part of a binary "image". The compiler/interpreter, debugger, IDE, the standard library, your source and everything else was in one big blob.
Re: Programming Language Checklist
#125> [ ] Syntax is what makes programming difficult I'd love to see language design and language development treated as different disciplines. Just like developers were the first web designers, developers have been the first language designers. Ideally a language designer would only be tasked with how to express complex ideas in a simple, composable syntax. Language developers would be tasked with everything else: basic…
I agree with this point of view. I’m a part-time MSc student in CS and have enrolled in a few courses in both linguistics and philosophy (how to convey ideas through language, non-CS) with the goal of designing a language for my thesis. At a theoretical level they seem connected but I’m mostly just interested in how they relate at the design and implementation level!
Re: Programming Language Checklist
#126Man, I so need something like this filled out for Blazor, but since it's not expressly a language, it doesn't quite fit. Been arguing against it for a while, half the new projects (from other teams) where I work are using it.
My mates a ‘die hard’ C# fan and has been using it (almost exclusively) for over 15 years. Recently he’s been talking about Blazor a lot, and having worked on a few web apps myself, I can see its general appeal.
Why don’t you like it? I’ve not read any anti-Blazor opinions.
Re: Programming Language Checklist
#127Of course, every successful language could be roasted with this, too. It's a cute post but if there were a simple checklist for creating a successful language, every language designer would just do that.
Bjarne Stroustrup, creator of C++, is often quoted with this statement: "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses." I suppose, scathing criticism in that respect is the highest form of praise.
Off topic but I attended a talk by Stroustrup on C++ and one of my favourite parts was when he was asked what his thoughts were on Java or C#.
“I don’t like to talk badly about C++ applications.”
If not strictly true nowadays it was still funny.
Re: Programming Language Checklist
#128Is there anybody who would argue against:
- everything is an expression
- destructuring
- support for higher order functions
Those seem to be universally loved features that new programming languages are required to have in order to still be appealing.
Re: Programming Language Checklist
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's older than that. I won't say how I know, but bits and pieces of this were tumbling around in the undergrad hivemind of a certain Pittsburgh university for awhile before 2011. ;)
I remember seeing it back when I was interested in programming language design. I lost interest around 2010 (after concluding largely what the checklist was getting at, that there's no point developing a new programming language), so that would put it in the 2005-2010 period. Ironically, most of the languages I've used in the last 5 years (Swift, Rust, Kotlin) post-date that period, so I was wrong in my conclusion.
So your username?
Re: Programming Language Checklist
#130How is this checklist supposed to be used?
It's a variation of the "checklist explanation of why your proposal is a failure" that was in vogue back in the day, and is less often seen these days. I first saw it in the 90s.
It's a joke. You don't "use" it except to diss a language you don't like.