4 ms·

> Does it make sense to consider Python an old language if it's still a living language? Python, I'd argue, is very much a living language. It was introduced i

> Does it make sense to consider Python an old language if it's still a living language? Python, I'd argue, is very much a living language. It was introduced in 1990, so it's 29 years old. Last release was 5 days ago as I write this [1] Java, is also a living language. It was introduced in 1995, so it's 23 years old. Last release was in September 25 [2] Cobol was introduced in 1959, so it's 1959. [3] The last table release was 2014 (which is a lot newer than I would have expected). Cobol is a great object lesson, I think, as the parent comment calls out. I don't think many software engineers would consider it a "modern" language, but according to the Wikipedia article, as of 2012, 60% of businesses use Cobol. So it's far from a "dead" language. Lisp was introduced in 1958... 61 years old. [4]. I don't think many developers would consider Lisp dead, either. Cobol's longevity seems to be tied to the fact that much of the legacy code encapsulates business logic, as opposed to UX logic (websites, mobile apps, etc.) There's more than a few lessons in there I think... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Python_(programming_language)&oldid=886838081 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Python_(programmi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Java_(programming_language)&oldid=886248999 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Java_(programming... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COBOL&oldid=883241384 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COBOL&oldid=88324... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisp_(programming_language)&oldid=886566242 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisp_(programming...

kazinator 8y ago
I consider the 1958 Lisp to be dead. The Lisp family's longevity doesn't stem from maintaining legacy code from 1960, but because it actually embodies attractive concepts that continue to captivate new generations of coders, often not in connection to anything mundane, like a job.
- kazinator 8y ago
  Not ragging on Lisp here in any way, but it's been long since the original Lisp is has been viable. It continues to historic significance, and anything that calls itself Lisp still has cons, car, cdr, atom, lists ending in nil (which is a symbol) and such. In 1958, you had no macros, no lexical closures, no exception handling, no backquote, no objects or structures, no bignum integers, ... Whereas COBOL today is pretty much the same pile of stuff it was in 1960-something. It's not a vibrant language family with newer members. COBOL does not absorb new concepts. There are new, young people learning COBOL, but only in order to become maintainers of legacy systems: job security in banking, finance and government sectors. Maybe a few have a perverse curiosity: they want to know what is really behind the dirty five letter word. New people coming to a Lisp are coming for the Lisp itself. There aren't that many Lisp jobs involving new or legacy coding; new Lisp people learn and make new stuff from scratch. There is simply no comparison.

kazinator 8y ago

I consider the 1958 Lisp to be dead. The Lisp family's longevity doesn't stem from maintaining legacy code from 1960, but because it actually embodies attractive concepts that continue to captivate new generations of coders, often not in connection to anything mundane, like a job.

kazinator 8y ago
Not ragging on Lisp here in any way, but it's been long since the original Lisp is has been viable. It continues to historic significance, and anything that calls itself Lisp still has cons, car, cdr, atom, lists ending in nil (which is a symbol) and such. In 1958, you had no macros, no lexical closures, no exception handling, no backquote, no objects or structures, no bignum integers, ... Whereas COBOL today is pretty much the same pile of stuff it was in 1960-something. It's not a vibrant language family with newer members. COBOL does not absorb new concepts. There are new, young people learning COBOL, but only in order to become maintainers of legacy systems: job security in banking, finance and government sectors. Maybe a few have a perverse curiosity: they want to know what is really behind the dirty five letter word. New people coming to a Lisp are coming for the Lisp itself. There aren't that many Lisp jobs involving new or legacy coding; new Lisp people learn and make new stuff from scratch. There is simply no comparison.