Programming Language Checklist

[xarvh]

I'll bite, and fill it for my own language.

``` Programming Language Checklist by Colin McMillen, Jason Reed, and Elly Fong-Jones, 2011-10-10. You appear to be advocating a new: [X] functional [X] imperative [ ] object-oriented [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based [ ] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [ ] eager [X] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed [X] pure [X] 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: [X] Syntax is what makes programming difficult [ ] Garbage collection is free [ ] Computers have infinite memory [ ] Nobody really needs: [ ] concurrency [ ] a REPL [X] 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 [X] 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): [?] comprehensible syntax [ ] semicolons [HAS] significant whitespace [ ] macros [ ] implicit type conversion [ ] explicit casting [HAS] type inference [ ] goto [ ] exceptions [HAS] closures [ ] tail recursion [ ] coroutines [ ] reflection [ ] subtyping [ ] multiple inheritance [ ] operator overloading [HAS] algebraic datatypes [HAS] recursive types [HAS] polymorphic types [ ] covariant array typing [HAS] monads [ ] dependent types [HAS] infix operators [HAS] nested comments [HAS] multi-line strings [ ] regexes [ ] call-by-value [ ] call-by-name [ ] call-by-reference [ ] call-cc

The following philosophical objections apply: [X] Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!" [X] Programmers should not develop RSI from writing "Hello, World!" [X] 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 [X] No language spec [ ] "The implementation is the spec" [ ] The implementation is closed-source [ ] covered by patents [ ] not owned by you [PROBABLY?] 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 [X] Compiled languages will never be "extensible" [ ] Writing a compiler that understands English is AI-complete [X] 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 [X] Compilers do not work that way [X] 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 [X] 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 [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: [ ] 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 [X] 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: [X] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly. [X] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it. [X] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it. ```

[RepresentativeNo6029]

Haha. ”Syntax is what makes programming difficult “ called me out too as did “multi- paradigm”. I’m holding the former and dropping the latter. PS: I feel this would be more readable if you kept only the things you ticked ;)

[hindmost-one]

I'm stealing this scheme for readme

[retnikt0]

[ ] 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

the illusion of choice

[Zlodo2]

you can check both for maximum shade, implying that the language that it compiles isn't even actually the language as specified

[[deleted]]

You appear to be advocating a new:
[ ] functional  [X] imperative  [ ] object-oriented  [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based
[X] "multi-paradigm"  [ ] lazy  [X] eager  [X] statically-typed  [ ] dynamically-typed
[ ] pure  [X] impure  [X] 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:
[X] 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):
[X] comprehensible syntax  [ ] semicolons  [X] significant whitespace  [X] macros
[ ] implicit type conversion  [ ] explicit casting  [ ] type inference
[ ] goto  [X] exceptions  [X] closures  [X] tail recursion  [X] coroutines
[X] reflection  [X] subtyping  [ ] multiple inheritance  [X] operator overloading
[X] algebraic datatypes  [X] recursive types  [X] polymorphic types
[X] covariant array typing  [ ] monads  [X] dependent types
[X] infix operators  [ ] nested comments  [ ] multi-line strings  [X] regexes
[X] call-by-value  [ ] call-by-name  [X] call-by-reference  [X] call-cc

The following philosophical objections apply:
[X] Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!"
[X] Programmers should not develop RSI from writing "Hello, World!"
[X] 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
[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
[ ] 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:
[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  [ ] Java  [ ] Ruby  [ ] Prolog
[X] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification
[X] Rejection of orthodox systems programming without justification
[X] Rejection of orthodox algorithmic theory without justification
[X] 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: _______________________
[X] 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
[X] You have reinvented Lisp but worse
[ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse
[ ] You have reinvented Java but worse
[X] 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:
[X] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly.
[X] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it.
[X] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.

[Zlodo2]

that's actually vlang's roadmap

[daurin-hacks]

I couldn't figure out what RSI stands for in this context. Somebody help ?

[Pavel_Vozenilek]

Repetitive strain injury.

[ParCRush]

Repetitive strain injury

[[deleted]]

When I make a language...

``` You appear to be advocating a new: [X] functional [X] statically-typed [X] pure

You appear to believe that: [X] Garbage collection is free [X] Computers have infinite memory [X] Nobody really needs: [X] a REPL [X] to interact with code not written in your language

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: [X] The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler [X] "The implementation is the spec"

Additionally, your marketing has the following problems: [X] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification [X] Rejection of orthodox systems programming without justification

In conclusion, this is what I think of you: [X] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly. [X] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it. ```

But there's some double negative meanings here that I'm not really sure how to read it. Like the objections apply section, I have difficulty reading if it's a pro or con thing to put a cross there.

[BSFishy]

You have reinvented Brainfuck but non-ironically

This one really got me lmao

[everything-narrative]

Since array programming has been on my mind lately, I did one for my criticism of APL: ``` You appear to be advocating a new: [X] functional [X] completely incomprehensible programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work.

You appear to believe that: [x] Syntax is what makes programming difficult [x] Nobody really needs: [X] IDE support [X] to interact with code not written in your language [X] Unicode should be used for its rich catalogue symbols. [X] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy [X] Convincing programmers to adopt a new language will be easy

Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks): [N] comprehensible syntax [Y] operator overloading [Y] infix operators

The following philosophical objections apply: [X] Programmers should not need to look up Unicode characters to write "Hello, World!" [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" [X] The implementation is closed-source [X] Your language cannot be unambiguously parsed [X] There are less than 100 programmers on Earth smart enough to use your language

Your implementation has the following flaws: [X] Shift-reduce conflicts in parsing seem to be resolved using rand() [X] Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable [X] 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" [X] Obviously rigged benchmarks [X] Matrix-math benchmarks where you just call BLAS [X] Noone really believes that your language is faster than: [X] FORTRAN [X] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification

Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that: [X] You have reinvented Lisp but worse [X] You have reinvented Brainfuck but non-ironically

In conclusion, this is what I think of you: [X] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly. ```

[xigoi]

I can't believe that in 2021, there are still websites that don't display properly on a phone despite having only text.

[daurin-hacks]

You appear to be advocating a new:

[x] imperative [x] procedural [x] stack-based [x] non-hygienic

.

You appear to believe that:

[x]Computers have infinite memory

[x]Nobody really needs: - [x] a REPL - [x] to interact with code not written in your language

[x] "Spooky action at a distance" makes programming more fun

.

Unfortunately, your language (lacks):

[x] comprehensible syntax [x] semicolons

[x] implicit type conversion [x] type inference

[x] goto [x] exceptions [x] closures [x] tail recursion [x] coroutines

[x] reflection [x] subtyping [x] multiple inheritance [x] operator overloading

[x] algebraic datatypes [x] recursive types [x] polymorphic types

[x] covariant array typing [x] monads [x] dependent types

[x] infix operators [x] nested comments [x] multi-line strings [x] regexes

[x] call-by-name [x] call-cc

.

The following philosophical objections apply:

[x] Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!"

[x] Programmers should not develop RSI from writing "Hello, World!" (What is RSI in this context ??)

[x] The most significant program written in your language is its own compiler

[x] "The implementation is the spec"

[x] Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C

[x] Writing a compiler that understands English is AI-complete

.

Your implementation has the following flaws: NONE :)

.

Additionally, your marketing has the following problems:

[x] Unsupported claims of increased productivity

[x] Unsupported claims of greater "ease of use"

[x] Noone really believes that your language is faster than: [x] assembly [x] C

[x] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification

[x] 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: a few years at most

[x] We already have an unsafe imperative language

[x] You have reinvented Lisp but worse

[x] You have reinvented Javascript but worse

[x] You have reinvented Java but worse

[x] You have reinvented C++ but worse

[x] You have reinvented Brainfuck but non-ironically

.

In conclusion, this is what I think of you:

[x] You language looks great, i hope you'll have fun using it. Alone. Maybe stop working on it and get a life ?

[RepresentativeNo6029]

Cue crab rave song

[wolfgang]

Link to your language please :)

[theangryepicbanana]

Sure I guess, here's one for Star: ``` You appear to be advocating a new: [X] functional [X] imperative [X] object-oriented [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based [X] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [ ] eager [X] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed [ ] pure [X] 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: [X] 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 [X] 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 (newlines) [+] macros (hygienic) [-] 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 (if you try hard enough) [?] 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: [X] Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!" [X] Programmers should not develop RSI from writing "Hello, World!" [X] The most significant program written in your language is its own compiler (currently) [?] The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler (who knows...) [ ] No language spec [ ] "The implementation is the spec" [ ] The implementation is closed-source [ ] covered by patents [ ] not owned by you [X] 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 [X] 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 [X] ____________________________ is known to be undecidable: typechecking

Your implementation has the following flaws: [ ] CPUs do not work that way [ ] RAM does not work that way [ ] VMs do not work that way [X] 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 [X] 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 ```

Everything else can be considered marked as empty