www-builder/static/language_checklist.html

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
<link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="/favicon.ico">
<link rel="canonical" href="https://www.mcmillen.dev/language_checklist.html">

<title>Programming Language Checklist | Colin McMillen</title>

<style>
body {
  font-size: 16px;
}

pre {
   overflow: auto;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<tt>
Programming Language Checklist<br>
by <a href="https://www.mcmillen.dev">Colin McMillen</a>, <a href="http://jcreed.org">Jason Reed</a>, and <a href="https://elly.town/">Elly Fong-Jones</a>, 2011-10-10.
<br>
<p>
<pre>
You appear to be advocating a new:
[ ] functional  [ ] imperative  [ ] object-oriented  [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based
[ ] "multi-paradigm"  [ ] lazy  [ ] eager  [ ] 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
[ ] Garbage collection is free                [ ] Computers have infinite memory
[ ] Nobody really needs:
    [ ] concurrency  [ ] a REPL  [ ] debugger support  [ ] IDE support  [ ] I/O
    [ ] to interact with code not written in your language
[ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII
[ ] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy
[ ] 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
[ ] 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):
[ ] comprehensible syntax  [ ] semicolons  [ ] significant whitespace  [ ] macros
[ ] implicit type conversion  [ ] explicit casting  [ ] type inference
[ ] goto  [ ] exceptions  [ ] closures  [ ] tail recursion  [ ] coroutines
[ ] reflection  [ ] subtyping  [ ] multiple inheritance  [ ] operator overloading
[ ] algebraic datatypes  [ ] recursive types  [ ] polymorphic types
[ ] covariant array typing  [ ] monads  [ ] dependent types
[ ] infix operators  [ ] nested comments  [ ] multi-line strings  [ ] 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
[ ] The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler
[ ] No language spec
[ ] "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
[ ] 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
[ ] ____________________________ 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
[ ] You require the language runtime to be present at compile-time
[ ] Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable
[ ] Dangerous behavior is only a warning
[ ] 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:
[ ] Unsupported claims of increased productivity
[ ] 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
[ ] Noone really believes that your language is faster than:
    [ ] assembly  [ ] C  [ ] FORTRAN  [ ] 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 without justification

Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that:
[ ] Your complex sample code would be one line in: _______________________
[ ] We already have an unsafe imperative language
[ ] We already have a safe imperative OO language
[ ] 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
[ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse
[ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification
[ ] You have reinvented Brainfuck but non-ironically

In conclusion, this is what I think of you:
[ ] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly.
[ ] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it.
[ ] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.
</pre>
</tt>
</body>
</html>
remove google analytics; update to html5 2021-06-28 19:08:27 +00:00			`<!DOCTYPE html>`
			`<html lang="en">`
add site content 2021-06-28 17:30:52 +00:00			`<head>`
canonicalize some meta-tag orders 2021-06-29 22:04:37 +00:00			`<meta charset="UTF-8">`
fix mobile usability issues for language_checklist.html ? 2021-06-29 21:03:49 +00:00			`<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">`
canonicalize some meta-tag orders 2021-06-29 22:04:37 +00:00			`<link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="/favicon.ico">`
			`<link rel="canonical" href="https://www.mcmillen.dev/language_checklist.html">`

add alt tags to splatters and name to titles in static html files 2021-06-29 22:30:05 +00:00			`<title>Programming Language Checklist \| Colin McMillen</title>`
canonicalize some meta-tag orders 2021-06-29 22:04:37 +00:00
fix mobile usability issues for language_checklist.html ? 2021-06-29 21:03:49 +00:00			`<style>`
			`body {`
			`font-size: 16px;`
			`}`
canonicalize some meta-tag orders 2021-06-29 22:04:37 +00:00
			`pre {`
			`overflow: auto;`
			`}`
fix mobile usability issues for language_checklist.html ? 2021-06-29 21:03:49 +00:00			`</style>`
add site content 2021-06-28 17:30:52 +00:00			`</head>`
			`<body>`
			`<tt>`
			`Programming Language Checklist<br>`
fix mobile usability issues for language_checklist.html ? 2021-06-29 21:03:49 +00:00			`by <a href="https://www.mcmillen.dev">Colin McMillen</a>, <a href="http://jcreed.org">Jason Reed</a>, and <a href="https://elly.town/">Elly Fong-Jones</a>, 2011-10-10.`
add site content 2021-06-28 17:30:52 +00:00			`<br>`
			`<p>`
			`<pre>`
			`You appear to be advocating a new:`
			`[ ] functional [ ] imperative [ ] object-oriented [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based`
			`[ ] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [ ] eager [ ] 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`
			`[ ] Garbage collection is free [ ] Computers have infinite memory`
			`[ ] Nobody really needs:`
			`[ ] concurrency [ ] a REPL [ ] debugger support [ ] IDE support [ ] I/O`
			`[ ] to interact with code not written in your language`
			`[ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII`
			`[ ] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy`
			`[ ] 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`
			`[ ] 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):`
			`[ ] comprehensible syntax [ ] semicolons [ ] significant whitespace [ ] macros`
			`[ ] implicit type conversion [ ] explicit casting [ ] type inference`
			`[ ] goto [ ] exceptions [ ] closures [ ] tail recursion [ ] coroutines`
			`[ ] reflection [ ] subtyping [ ] multiple inheritance [ ] operator overloading`
			`[ ] algebraic datatypes [ ] recursive types [ ] polymorphic types`
			`[ ] covariant array typing [ ] monads [ ] dependent types`
			`[ ] infix operators [ ] nested comments [ ] multi-line strings [ ] 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`
			`[ ] The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler`
			`[ ] No language spec`
			`[ ] "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`
			`[ ] 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`
			`[ ] ____________________________ 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`
			`[ ] You require the language runtime to be present at compile-time`
			`[ ] Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable`
			`[ ] Dangerous behavior is only a warning`
			`[ ] 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:`
			`[ ] Unsupported claims of increased productivity`
			`[ ] 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`
			`[ ] Noone really believes that your language is faster than:`
			`[ ] assembly [ ] C [ ] FORTRAN [ ] 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 without justification`

			`Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that:`
			`[ ] Your complex sample code would be one line in: _______________________`
			`[ ] We already have an unsafe imperative language`
			`[ ] We already have a safe imperative OO language`
			`[ ] 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`
			`[ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse`
			`[ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification`
			`[ ] You have reinvented Brainfuck but non-ironically`

			`In conclusion, this is what I think of you:`
			`[ ] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly.`
			`[ ] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it.`
			`[ ] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.`
			`</pre>`
			`</tt>`
			`</body>`
			`</html>`