3 ms·

Before you start down this path, which will take longer than you imagine, you need to understand your underlying reasons for doing so. What is your problem dom

Before you start down this path, which will take longer than you imagine, you need to understand your underlying reasons for doing so. What is your problem domain? What don't you like about the currently available languages? Why do you want to kill yourself doing so? Can you afford to do so? Is this something you consider fun? Understand yourself first and be willing to spend the time learning and sure go ahead, knock yourself out. Just keep in mind that there are a small number of language classifications and yours will fit into one of these: COBOL style languages: COBOL, Common Lisp, C, C++, C# and Java are examples here. Fortran style languages: Fortran and all its variations. ALGOL style languages: ALGOL 60, ALGOl 68, Simula, Scheme, Pascal and others, Functional style languages: ML, Haskell, Clean, OCAML, etc. Forth style languages: FORTH, Postscript, Factor, etc SNOBOL oriented languages: SNOBOL 4, Icon, Unicon, etc and a couple of other more minor kinds.

mepian 3y ago
Uhhhh, how is Common Lisp COBOL-style?
- NikkiA 3y ago
  "Starts with a C, innit"
hnlmorg 3y ago
I don’t think your list is particularly well compiled. For starters, bar your “functional” group, you’ve not grouped them by paradigms. Which has meant you’ve left out some pretty significant classifications. And several languages haven’t even been grouped correctly using your own method (or at least the lack of established terminology makes it harder to understand the grouping context behind each category, since most languages exhibit multiple traits and influences).
JonChesterfield 3y ago
This is really good advice. Writing a language you'd actually like to use is difficult. It's been a richer source of interesting subproblems than any other I've found. If it's for education or entertainment, all good. If it's something you're going to quit a day job to pursue in the hope it'll make you wealthy later, quite high risk. Language classifications normally antagonise people and tagging Lisp as essentially COBOL is well chosen for that. You're missing the prolog family and proof languages (coq/isabelle/lean etc). Also smalltalk (from which one might draw self and javascript). Knowing exactly what one has rejected about existing languages is useful as a guide.
- oldandtired 3y ago
  The language classifications section was an attempt at humour. I am currently trying to [understand] the quirky translation of ScratchPad to Common Lisp used within the Axiom/FriCAS systems. You see the same sort of problems in Maxima to Common Lisp translations.
oldandtired 3y ago
Oh dear, the language classifications above was supposed to be a somewhat obtuse sort of joke and it appears that I was way too obtuse with the grouping for [COBOL style languages] and the [a couple of other more minor kinds]. Way too many [Dad jokes] or in my case [Granddad Jokes].

mepian 3y ago

Uhhhh, how is Common Lisp COBOL-style?

NikkiA 3y ago
"Starts with a C, innit"

hnlmorg 3y ago

I don’t think your list is particularly well compiled. For starters, bar your “functional” group, you’ve not grouped them by paradigms. Which has meant you’ve left out some pretty significant classifications. And several languages haven’t even been grouped correctly using your own method (or at least the lack of established terminology makes it harder to understand the grouping context behind each category, since most languages exhibit multiple traits and influences).

JonChesterfield 3y ago

This is really good advice. Writing a language you'd actually like to use is difficult. It's been a richer source of interesting subproblems than any other I've found. If it's for education or entertainment, all good. If it's something you're going to quit a day job to pursue in the hope it'll make you wealthy later, quite high risk. Language classifications normally antagonise people and tagging Lisp as essentially COBOL is well chosen for that. You're missing the prolog family and proof languages (coq/isabelle/lean etc). Also smalltalk (from which one might draw self and javascript). Knowing exactly what one has rejected about existing languages is useful as a guide.

oldandtired 3y ago
The language classifications section was an attempt at humour. I am currently trying to [understand] the quirky translation of ScratchPad to Common Lisp used within the Axiom/FriCAS systems. You see the same sort of problems in Maxima to Common Lisp translations.

oldandtired 3y ago

Oh dear, the language classifications above was supposed to be a somewhat obtuse sort of joke and it appears that I was way too obtuse with the grouping for [COBOL style languages] and the [a couple of other more minor kinds]. Way too many [Dad jokes] or in my case [Granddad Jokes].