|
Programming Language Checklist
|
|
|
by Colin 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 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.
|