You can not select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
|
|
<!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en"><head><title>Programming Language Checklist</title><link rel="shortcut icon" type="image/png" href="/favicon.ico"/><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"><link rel="canonical" href="https://www.mcmillen.dev/language_checklist.html"><style>body { font-size: 16px;}</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 incomprehensibleprogramming 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>
|
