Complete the checklist! :o)

[Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d]

On 5 August 2014 22:34, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 10:14:21AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html
>
> Alright, I'll have a go at it:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Programming Language Checklist
>    by [1]Colin McMillen, [2]Jason Reed, and [3]Elly Jones.
>
>  You appear to be advocating a new:
>  [ ] functional  [X] imperative  [X] object-oriented  [X] procedural [X] stack-based
>  [X] "multi-paradigm"  [X] lazy  [X] eager  [X] 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
>  [X] Garbage collection is free                [ ] Computers have infinite memory
>  [X] Nobody really needs:
>      [ ] concurrency  [X] a REPL  [X] debugger support  [X] IDE support  [ ] I/O
>      [ ] to interact with code not written in your language

I resent you ticking the debugger support box. ;-)

But is is true that debugging comes as a second class citizen. By way
of example, currently if you want to make a break point at an
optimisation pass in GCC, you have to break at '(anonymous
namespace)::pass_xxxx::execute' - this is post conversion to C++!


>
>  Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that:
>  [X] Your complex sample code would be one line in: _APL :-)_______________
>  [X] 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

At least you didn't tick these three bottom boxes. ;)

Iain.