From fbef645746d68a654873ca129abf3575cf11aeec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: crumbtoo Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 09:39:06 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] checklist --- programming-language-checklist | 105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 105 insertions(+) create mode 100644 programming-language-checklist diff --git a/programming-language-checklist b/programming-language-checklist new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cbc72ff --- /dev/null +++ b/programming-language-checklist @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +Programming Language Checklist +by Colin McMillen, Jason Reed, and Elly Fong-Jones, 2011-10-10. + +You appear to be advocating a new: +[x] functional [ ] imperative [ ] object-oriented [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based +[ ] "multi-paradigm" [x] lazy [ ] eager [x] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed +[x] pure [ ] impure [ ] non-hygienic [ ] visual [x] 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 +[x] Garbage collection is free [x] Computers have infinite memory +[x] Nobody really needs: + [x] concurrency [x] a REPL [x] debugger support [x] IDE support [x] I/O + [x] 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): +[x] comprehensible syntax [ ] semicolons [x] significant whitespace [ ] macros +[ ] implicit type conversion [ ] explicit casting [x] type inference +[ ] goto [ ] exceptions [x] closures [x] tail recursion [ ] coroutines +[ ] reflection [ ] subtyping [ ] multiple inheritance [x] operator overloading +[x] algebraic datatypes [x] recursive types [x] polymorphic types +[ ] covariant array typing [x] monads [ ] dependent types +[x] infix operators [x] nested comments [ ] multi-line strings [ ] regexes +[ ] call-by-value [x] 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 +[x] The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler +[x] No language spec +[x] "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 +[x] The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google +[x] 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 +[x] The VM crashes if you look at it funny +[x] You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques +[x] 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: +[x] Unsupported claims of increased productivity +[x] 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 +[x] Noone really believes that your language is faster than: + [x] assembly [x] C [x] FORTRAN [x] Java [x] Ruby [ ] Prolog +[ ] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification +[x] 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: +[x] Your complex sample code would be one line in: examples/ +[ ] We already have an unsafe imperative language +[ ] We already have a safe imperative OO language +[x] 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. +[x] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it. +[ ] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it. +