It's not so great to submit lists of articles, such as the home page of a magazine issue, because then there isn't any content to sink teeth into. Such threads always boil down to lowest-common-denominator, i.e. generic, i.e. low-information discussions.<p>It's better to submit a specific article and then people can discuss what it says.
It's almost like Turbo Pascal, Delphi, and Object Pascal never existed, yet <i>many</i> applications were written (and are still written, in the case of Object Pascal) in all of them.<p>It's the same thing with the XBase languages like dBase, Clipper, and FoxPro.<p>I'm not sure if it's just poor research skills with such articles, or just a general ignorance of PC software development history, but these languages and products were an integral part of the PC revolution.
In the article about non-Turing-complete languages, I kind of expected to find a mention of Dhall which is a fancy new programmable configuration language:<p><a href="https://github.com/dhall-lang/dhall-lang" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/dhall-lang/dhall-lang</a>
"Six questions on programming languages" - Which programming languages do you use?<p>Not a single functional or declarative language. What a waste of an article.
A Brief, Incomplete, and Mostly Wrong History of Programming Languages<p>Remains the best and most accurate article on programming languages available.<p><a href="https://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-mostly-wrong.html?m=1" rel="nofollow">https://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-...</a>
I think it's great to have an internet magazine of sorts - I do question the approach.<p>These articles have no logical connection to each other, it's just random bits.<p>I find that problematic - the only thing holding these articles together is the consistency of the layout and illustrations. In a world where there are more scientific papers, talks, blogs and books than I can consume in my lifetime, I'm not sure what this brings to the table.<p>The real difficulty is in parsing in all this information, and producing something that explains how the pieces can fit together nicely. This does not do that.