Programming Language Checklist
byColin McMillen, Jason Reed, and Elly Jones.
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 the 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.
Read More********
byColin McMillen, Jason Reed, and Elly Jones.
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 the 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.
Read More********
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings