Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Any decent modern general-purpose languages?

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-25 10:55

Assembly: Unportable. No standardised syntax.
Classical Visual Basic: Some good parts. Shit overall.
C: Shitty standard library. Deficient type system. Can't into Unicode. ``Unportable assembly.''
D and C++: Obfuscated boilerplate languages.
Java and C#: Forced OOP.
Common Lisp: Archaic cons-based library. Writing complex macros is a PitA due to the unlispy quotation syntaxes.
Scheme: CL without namespaces.
Clojure and Erlang: Concurrency is unneeded outside of a few very specific applications. Parallelism is where it's at.
OCaml: Great language, only one, deficient, implementation.
Haskell: Academic sex toy.
Forth: Reinventing the wheel over and over.
Ruby: Implicit declarations. Slow as fuck.
Python: Implicit declarations. FioC.
Perl: Brain damage.
PHP: Pretty much shit.
JavaScript: "" == false

It's impossible to list them all but, please, what decent modern general-purpose languages exist?

Name: Anonymous 2012-08-08 18:52

>>246
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/datapoint/2200/2200_Programmers_Man_Aug71.pdf
Why is the original description of the embedded terminal architecture that Intel licensed from Datapoint to make the 8008/8080 so much more readable than Intel's description? And why are we still using extensions to extensions to extensions to an embedded CPU architecture designed to be what could cheaply fit on one chip in the 70's?

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List