5 ms·

Wow - what's driving the quest for new programming languages? Is there a gap that is still not addressed by the existing languages? At the core, there is only

by zkmon 1y ago

Wow - what's driving the quest for new programming languages? Is there a gap that is still not addressed by the existing languages? At the core, there is only one control statement (GOTO) and a few operations that work on values in memory - IF, READ, WRITE, ADD etc. Anything else is a recipe that uses these ingredients.

novosel 1y ago
True, true. But maybe somewhat reductive? What about complexity? The one arising from the growing code, and the other in the brain using the language? I feel new languages try to strategize in the domain of complexity management.
- anonzzzies 1y ago
  Are they? Examples (this (red/rebol) are OLD)? I see more crap. We already have ways to manage complexity; we have VERY advanced type systems that are finally feasible (my joy) but no one can work with them, and llms not yet. You can manage resources, logic, proofs etc all with typesystems. Rust is a step (people like it as they can make changes to large codebases without leakage somewhere you 'forgot' is there and others like it because there are less footguns), but we have the future already in a bunch of other languages it's just not used. So what do you mean with " I feel new languages try to strategize in the domain of complexity management."? (Disclaimer: I think the GP comment is of a level that I don't think should even be considered replying to, so I didn't)
cmrdporcupine 1y ago
REBOL is 28 years old.
- brabel 1y ago
  And Red has been around since 2013.
wiz21c 1y ago
languages are not about what you can do but what you can safely (that is, without introducing bugs) abstract while remaining productive (you can code easily) and conducive of human organizations (you can organize team communication around the code).
mpweiher 1y ago
It's all just Turing machines, or Lambda calculus, or NAND gates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_logic Even FORTRAN was unnecessary. Or maybe...maybe...we're having some problems that our current programming languages aren't addressing: https://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/hirschfeld/publications/media/Weiher_2020_CanProgrammersEscapeTheGentleTyrannyOfCallReturn_AcmDL.pdf https://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/hirschfeld/publications/media... And so we should: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689492.3690052 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689492.3690052
- justin66 1y ago
  It’s all ball bearings nowadays.
petralithic 1y ago
Languages are for humans, not for computers, who read binary anyway.
ModernMech 1y ago
That's like asking "What's with all these people writing books? Is there a gap that is still not addressed by existing books?" Programming languages are fun to write, it's not more complicated than that.
Gormo 1y ago
> Wow - what's driving the quest for new programming languages? Is People having an interest in exploring the topic.

by zkmon 1y ago

novosel 1y ago

True, true. But maybe somewhat reductive? What about complexity? The one arising from the growing code, and the other in the brain using the language? I feel new languages try to strategize in the domain of complexity management.

anonzzzies 1y ago
Are they? Examples (this (red/rebol) are OLD)? I see more crap. We already have ways to manage complexity; we have VERY advanced type systems that are finally feasible (my joy) but no one can work with them, and llms not yet. You can manage resources, logic, proofs etc all with typesystems. Rust is a step (people like it as they can make changes to large codebases without leakage somewhere you 'forgot' is there and others like it because there are less footguns), but we have the future already in a bunch of other languages it's just not used. So what do you mean with " I feel new languages try to strategize in the domain of complexity management."? (Disclaimer: I think the GP comment is of a level that I don't think should even be considered replying to, so I didn't)

cmrdporcupine 1y ago

REBOL is 28 years old.

brabel 1y ago
And Red has been around since 2013.

wiz21c 1y ago

languages are not about what you can do but what you can safely (that is, without introducing bugs) abstract while remaining productive (you can code easily) and conducive of human organizations (you can organize team communication around the code).

mpweiher 1y ago

It's all just Turing machines, or Lambda calculus, or NAND gates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_logic Even FORTRAN was unnecessary. Or maybe...maybe...we're having some problems that our current programming languages aren't addressing: https://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/hirschfeld/publications/media/Weiher_2020_CanProgrammersEscapeTheGentleTyrannyOfCallReturn_AcmDL.pdf https://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/hirschfeld/publications/media... And so we should: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689492.3690052 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689492.3690052

justin66 1y ago
It’s all ball bearings nowadays.

petralithic 1y ago

Languages are for humans, not for computers, who read binary anyway.

ModernMech 1y ago

That's like asking "What's with all these people writing books? Is there a gap that is still not addressed by existing books?" Programming languages are fun to write, it's not more complicated than that.

Gormo 1y ago

> Wow - what's driving the quest for new programming languages? Is People having an interest in exploring the topic.