New Programming Language

So, /prog/

You are in charge of developing a new programming language. You are not the one who has to implement it, you just have to tell the codemonkies what you want.

Some things to think about:

- syntax style
- paradigm
- garbage collection or not
- vm or compiled
- type system
- special features of the compiler or language

- syntax style
Haskell. Two-dimensional layout is the logical progression of the off-side rule.

- paradigm
Emphasize functional and pure, but allow imperative and impure to help get shit done.

- garbage collection or not
Yes, but allow the programmer to give hints on when a variable should leave memory.

- vm or compiled
Compiled.

- type system
Strong static with type inference.

- special features of the compiler or language
Optimize recursion. Type classes for pure data structures, regular OO classes for impure.

>>41
I think you just described C++0x

>>42
Except not

>>42

int main() {
    [](){}();
    []{}();
}

Do not fucking want.

>>44
I can't get that to compile with G++'s "--std=c++0x" flag. What's it supposed to do?


test.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
test.cpp:2: error: expected primary-expression before ‘[’ token
test.cpp:2: error: expected primary-expression before ‘]’ token
test.cpp:2: error: expected `;' before ‘{’ token
test.cpp:2: error: expected primary-expression before ‘)’ token
test.cpp:3: error: expected primary-expression before ‘[’ token
test.cpp:3: error: expected primary-expression before ‘]’ token
test.cpp:3: error: expected `;' before ‘{’ token
test.cpp:3: error: expected primary-expression before ‘)’ token

>>45
Nothing.

>>45
Looks like you'll need to get a Sepplesox-compliant compiler, sonny.

>>41
Sounds like Mercury.

>>6
- syntax style
English.

ada, anyone?

COBOL mixed with FORTRAN mixed with MUMPS

>>49
Applescript.

Here is my idea for a good Programming Language:

* It combines from all programming language, including C, Basic, InterCal, Brainfuck, JavaScript, Lisp, PHP, Perl, SQL,etc. (including ABSTAIN,REINSTATE,FORGET in InterCal)
* It has force variable data types, but you don't have to use those; it also works without them.
* Both structure and un-structure commands
* Macros that you can do replacement with, for example: Macro(nlist a_ b_ = List.Ad1,a_,b_ qlist replace List in nlist)
* Values also have properties that don't do anything, but strings will be arrays of characters, so a property(type=string) will be one of them
* New types of numbers and everything can be made up using combinators and lambdas
* All kind of data types, arrays, strings(arrays), lists(arrays), numbers, bit, bitseq(arrays), functions, objects, functions-of-objects, sets, structured types, puding, references, pointers, etc.
* Short syntax for everything, like @(counts>256?{#pr.3(counts);call}) for a if command
* Communicate outside the program will be a separate object that will be call from outside to inside the program

>>52
1/10

>>52
FUCK I RAGED.
10/10.
This is the best troll ever

>>51

WIN!

>>49
Inform 7 (it's turing complete hurdurf)

>>56
You mean touring complete... dumbass.

>>1
Live your dream. Make the language as complex as possible.
Be a Liberated Haskell Programmer~

>>61
Please do not engage in discussions in necrothreads.

- syntax style
ASM

- paradigm
procedural

- garbage collection or not
No, GC is considered harmful

- vm or compiled
Compiled.

- type system
Strong static with type inference.

- special features of the compiler or language
optimized fib

>>62
- syntax style
ASM
What syntax?

We should solve some trivial problems in what we think all languages described in this thread would be like.

>>63
What
I think you mean which. >>62 probably means Intel syntax.

>>65
No, as in, ASM doesn't have syntax.

>>65
I meant what. See >>66

>>66,67
Wow, and yet I very strongly prefer Intel syntax to AT&T. Well, I guess I should quit bitching about FIOC now, because it doesn't have syntax either.

>>68
It has the forced indentation of code.

How about just reimplementing Haskell Prelude from scratch this time according to the Category Theory? As a language Haskell is nearly perfect, we just need better libraries.

How about just reimplementing Common LISP standard libraries from scratch this time using Scheme's naming convention? As a language Common LISP is nearly perfect, we just need consistency.

>>71
We don't need names that aren't even pronounceable in theory without turning spoken Lisp into a tonal language. Not to mention the semantic issues with using “?” to mark predicates. A predicate is an assertion, not a question. “?” functions had better be returning #y or #n, not #t or #f, or you've just compounded your Lisp fail with a natlang fail. Common Lisp could use some regularization, but there's no need to import Schemeish brain damage.

How about just reimplementing C++ standard libraries from scratch this time using Java's API? As a language C++ is nearly perfect, we just need ENTERPRISE.

>>72
Fuck off and die, ``faggot''.
Also, 7/10.

- syntax style

similar to C

- paradigm

functions, and variables, and at least a do while loop

- garbage collection or not

does that mean I don't have to free()? yes

- vm or compiled

i have to be able to run it with #!

- type system

what is that

- special features of the compiler or language

easy to use, and i want t obe able to make pages with it

>>74
Wait, he was trolling? 10/10. I raged more than once.

>>69
Ah but that's a syntax concern, and languages don't have syntax.

>>77
No, ASM doesn't have syntax. You're confused.

>>78
Right, because no language has syntax.

>>75
Oh, hi!