3 ms·
The list seems rather arbitrary. To add to the list, I would consider also: CLIPS, Coq, Dhall, Factor, Inform, Stan.
by js8 7y ago
The list seems rather arbitrary. To add to the list, I would consider also: CLIPS, Coq, Dhall, Factor, Inform, Stan.
- coldtea 7y ago>The list seems rather arbitrary As opposed to what list? An exhaustive one? The quality he asks of the languages in the list is "interesting", which is by definition rather arbitrary itself.
- reallydude 7y agoElixir is Ruby like wrapper to a prolog based syntax to do actor based programming. It's more of a mess trying to move Erlang's syntax forward than interesting, but ok. Ponylang is listed as "--" instead of "concurrency as a primitive type". I'm not sure I can trust anything on the list, so it doesn't motivate me to investigate further. YMMV
- coldtea 7y agoI don't really care if it's a "list I trust". I do care for a set of links to languages I've not seen yet, where I can click and check their websites -- and this provides it.
- nixpulvis 7y agoA more interesting list might be an <ol> with the first few languages to learn to cover the most good concepts. But such a list would be a lot more decisive.
- yakshaving_jgt 7y agoThis is essentially the premise of the book Seven Languages in Seven Weeks.
- imglorp 7y agoAnd if it was an objective measure, there would never be a least interesting language, because if there were, then it would be interesting for that reason.
- js8 7y agoI think it would be more useful if there was some criteria behind the list. Maybe there are, but I do not see what. It doesn't have to be exhaustive, there might be criteria like "not well known" or "representative of a certain idea". This is a good (albeit exhaustive) list too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages_by_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages_...
- techtalsky 7y agoGood call on Inform. It's certainly both novel and useful.