Myrddin: Language Design Checklist

4 months ago 6

Home
Contbuild

Language Design Checklist

This is a classic, so I need to put it here.

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 [ ] beginner-friendly [x] non-programmer-friendly [x] 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 [ ] Garbage collection is free [ ] Computers have infinite memory [ ] Nobody really needs: [x] concurrency [x] a REPL [x] debugger support [x] IDE support [ ] 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 [x] 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 [x] "Spooky action at a distance" makes programming more fun Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks): [N] comprehensible syntax [Y] semicolons [N] significant whitespace [N] macros [N] implicit type conversion [Y] explicit casting [Y] type inference [Y] goto [N] exceptions [Y] closures [N] tail recursion [N] coroutines [Y] reflection [N] subtyping [N] multiple inheritance [N] operator overloading [Y] algebraic datatypes [Y] recursive types [N] polymorphic types [N] covariant array typing [N] monads [N] dependent types [Y] infix operators [Y] nested comments [N] multi-line strings [Y] regexes (lib) [Y] call-by-value [N] call-by-name [N] call-by-reference [N] 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 [ ] "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 [x] 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 [ ] 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 [ ] 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 [x] 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 [x] 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 [x] 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" [x] 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 [ ] Ruby [ ] Prolog [x] 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: _______________________ [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 [ ] 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: [ ] 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.

Read Entire Article