h a l f b a k e r yReplace "light" with "sausages" and this may work...
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
If you look into programming languages, you will find
that there are
mind-bogglingly many of them, with probably hundreds
being created every year. For
example, see just the list of languages that compile to
JavaScript, a small subset
of all languages: [link]
I have searched for a list
of every programming language
that has been created, or
even just a count of how many there are. Such a thing
does not exist. There are
many lists, but all are incomplete (and none try to be
complete as far as I can
see).
I therefore propose the creation of a webpage or website
for the purpose of listing
every programming language that exists. It would
obviously be best for it to be
collaborative, such as some kind of wiki.
(This is not a call for a list. It's an idea to create a list.)
List of languages that compile to JavaScript
https://github.com/...-that-compile-to-JS
~350 languages by a rough count of <li> tags [notexactly, Feb 01 2016]
List _ of _ programming _ languages
https://en.wikipedi...ogramming_languages
[pashute, Feb 01 2016]
List of esoteric programming languages
https://esolangs.org/wiki/Language_list
Yet another very long list that is not intended to list anywhere near every programming language in existence [notexactly, Feb 02 2016]
Wikipedia notability requirements
https://en.wikipedi...ikipedia:Notability
[notexactly, Feb 02 2016]
Listicle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listicle
21 Ubuntu Install Tips That Will Drive Him Crazy In Bed! [popbottle, Feb 02 2016]
[link]
|
| |
Even the names of most of these fly-by-night
languages suggest that they were mostly created
by idiots who: |
|
| |
(a) thought of the name first, then built a language
to go with it. |
|
| |
(b) have failed to realize that by creating yet
another language with a name based on the word
"coffee", they are completely defeating the point
of a language and instead asymptoting towards a
future where there are as many languages as there
are humans. |
|
| |
I presume that most of these languages are either
trivial dialects of existing languages, or are
created and used solely by the same person. |
|
| |
C would be too low-level, and LispyScript has that one annoying syntax thing. This idea needs its own programming language to implement! |
|
| |
I thought about linking to Wikipedia's list, but didn't end up
doing it for some reason, so thanks for catching that,
[pashute]. Note that it specifically excludes non-notable
languages, esoteric languages, and BASIC dialects. |
|
| |
Interesting commentary, but not discouraging. I would like
to study the proliferation of languages regardless of its
goodness or badness. |
|
| |
Oh I get it. Forth is programming language, so it is a punishment. |
|
| |
Pun should be a computer language... and so should Double Entendre so the French can claim to have invented it first. |
|
| |
"She asked me for a double entendre, so I gave her
one." |
|
| |
but since there is already a web page, and it does link to
other web pages with requested info, and those pages no
doubt link to other pages...? |
|
| |
Neither linked page either lists all programming languages
or links to pages that do. |
|
| |
Funny, I didn't see Brainfuck listed on the Wikipedia page. |
|
| |
That's on the esoteric programming languages page linked
from the main page. |
|
| |
// Note that it specifically excludes non-notable languages,
*esoteric languages*, and BASIC dialects. // |
|
| |
Esoteric language list [link]ed. |
|
| |
Suppose I just created a new language called Blowhole (is written in FORTRAN 77 and transcompiles to VisualBasic 5.2). How are you going to add it to your list unless I tell you? |
|
| |
Is there any reason why you couldn't create a
comprehensive list on Wikipedia? I'm not familiar enough
with the rules to know if that article might be disallowed
since then everyone and their dog would add an entry for
their pet language that is only half developed. |
|
| |
// Suppose I just created a new language called
Blowhole (is written in FORTRAN 77 and transcompiles to
VisualBasic 5.2). How are you going to add it to your list
unless I tell you? // |
|
| |
I'm not. I intended it to be understood as all *publicly
known* programming languages in existence. |
|
| |
// Is there any reason why you couldn't create a
comprehensive list on Wikipedia? I'm not familiar enough
with the rules to know if that article might be disallowed
since then everyone and their dog would add an entry for
their pet language that is only half developed. // |
|
| |
" This is not a call for a list. It's an idea to create a list. " |
|
| |
Now we need a programming language which is created
from a list of programming language. Then we can include
in that list a reference to itself, in some conceivable
violation of classical set theory. |
|
| |
Yes, a sort of Cantor Diagonalanguage. |
|
| |
My preferred programming language, at least for
numerical applications, is Stoat. The syntax is
similar to Breviary, but it borrows quite a few
elements from Java and Flense. |
|
| |
You should Flense at least once a week. |
|
| |
If you took a bunch of lists of programming languages, and stripped them down to some minimally defined text-standard (all lower-case, despite an anticipated attack from the combined COBOL/FORTRAN/BASIC police) you should quickly be able to compile a single, super-list, to which new and exciting languages could be added. Once you figure out this procedure (and it's not a tricky one) then you can, almost trivially send new candidates at the list, and each will stick, one by one. Behold, an ever growing list of half-puns, in-jokes, and backronymic tomfoolery, mysterious punctuation (Oooh, let's add a # to the end!) and other such toss. |
|
| |
Once you've got your list defined, you can start attaching links, information and meta data to each entry - or use it as the seed for some meta-programming wiki, and encourage people to fill in the gaps. I'd strongly suspect this is out there somewhere already. |
|
| |
But as others have already mentioned, there needs to be a strict definition - when there are 'languages' out there such as YACC, who's purpose is to generate new and trivial 'grammars' - do they count? Does regex count? Is a programming language anything that is Turing Complete? |
|
| |
One thing in this space I would like to see done would be some classification of languages so you'd be able to ask yourself "I personally enjoy the code indentation conventions of Sumatra, and the call-back implementation in H, but am working on a graph-centric problem the algorithms of which are well documented in Flumpyhoops - I wonder if there's some language that covers all bases." |
|
| |
I think we should go further and disqualify
programming as a whole. Having to programme
computers is an indication that they're not very good
yet. I don't have to program my dog, yet it generally
works well. |
|
| |
// I don't have to program my dog, yet it generally works well. |
|
| |
Oh yeah? What do you call it when you swat your dog for scarfing down your crumpets or wotsits or whatever you chomp with tea over there? |
|
| |
"Bad Dorgi! Bad Dorgi!" -is- dog programming, I dare say (and should be added to [notexactly]'s list). |
|
| |
When I want Word to format, I tell it to do so; if it
does it wrong, I generally bash some keys to let it
know. That is similar to how one makes a dog
work properly, but it is not programming. |
|
| |
Programming is all the incredibly tedious stuff that
people have to do, in order that Word can fuck up
the formatting in the first place. And other people
have to programme the operating system that will
allow Word to operate in the first place. And yet
other people have to write the lower-level stuff
that lets the operating system do things I never
asked it to do in the second place. |
|
| |
My dog has no operating system.
Your dog has no operating system? How does it
smell?
Just fine. |
|
| |
Recategorized and renamed to fit better in the category. |
|
| |