TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Programming Language Checklist (2011)

45 pointsby njitramover 1 year ago

9 comments

ivolimmenover 1 year ago
Slashdot answer. Like this one: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tech.slashdot.org&#x2F;comments.pl?sid=218300&amp;cid=17719106" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tech.slashdot.org&#x2F;comments.pl?sid=218300&amp;cid=1771910...</a><p>Love these responses.
xnxover 1 year ago
I often wonder what it is about the programmer mindset&#x2F;psychology that curses such constant reinvention(&#x2F;reinvention?). Is this an unavoidable side effect of Moore&#x27;s law? Will we settle on just a few languages in the future? Will llms allow easy translation from less popular languages?
mjburgessover 1 year ago
imv, we&#x27;re still missing a C replacement-successor<p>There should be a language about as simple as c, with a few additional keywords for safety (type and memory), and a modern standard library -- that works basically everywhere C works, and is backwards compatible with C.<p>ie., we&#x27;re missing --C++<p>I think all the supposed successors have approached the problem from the lang-design pov, where for C, it needs to be from-existing-compilers-and-tools pov.<p>I suspect there&#x27;s a route to C v2 by starting with the C std, and gcc&#x2F;clang, then working &quot;forwards&quot;. Similar to cppfront for C++.<p>ie., it needs to compile 99% of all existing C code, it needs to compile to 90% of all in-use platform for C, etc.
评论 #39114903 未加载
评论 #39114896 未加载
评论 #39114932 未加载
评论 #39118157 未加载
评论 #39115689 未加载
pharmakomover 1 year ago
Quite funny, but I want people to advance the state of the art.<p>Does C++ &#x2F; Java &#x2F; Python really represent the high water mark of programming languages? I sure hope not…
评论 #39114886 未加载
EuAndrehover 1 year ago
We have &quot;No language spec&quot; and &quot;The implementation is the spec&quot;. Sooo, languages with a spec are strictly superior?
BoppreHover 1 year ago
I&#x27;ve tried updating it to 2024: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gist.github.com&#x2F;boppreh&#x2F;3b88231b7af15af54d292963f3d79b02" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gist.github.com&#x2F;boppreh&#x2F;3b88231b7af15af54d292963f3d7...</a>
blauditoreover 1 year ago
This is kind of accurate and funny, but also feels a bit like criticizing the drawing of a 4-year-old kid. :) At least when a language is just someone&#x27;s hobby project, or some exploration in research.
评论 #39115032 未加载
librasteveover 1 year ago
what we need is a gradually typed lazy &#x2F; eager language that helps to combine functional, imperative, concurrent and object-oriented styles, allows functions to use method syntax (and vice versa), with (and without) sigils &amp; twigils, and an entirely new regex syntax that packs a whole ragbag of weird stuff such as unicode graphemes, grammars, junctions, allomorphs, sequences, hyper (&gt;&gt;) and (Z&#x2F;R) metaoperators, sets, bags and mixes, coercion types and a MOP then we can check all the boxes (aka raku)
pharmakomover 1 year ago
To me what’s missing is a functional programming language that is statically typed and has an extreme emphasis on performance. C++ meets Haskell, but not terrible.
评论 #39118679 未加载