diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | premortem.txt | 107 |
1 files changed, 107 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/premortem.txt b/premortem.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d3809b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/premortem.txt @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ + Programming Language Checklist +by Colin McMillen, Jason Reed, and Elly Fong-Jones, 2011-10-10. +filled out for Evocation by Irenes, 2026-06-05. + +You appear to be advocating a new: +[ ] functional [X] imperative [ ] object-oriented [ ] procedural [X] stack-based +[ ] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [X] eager [ ] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed +[ ] pure [X] impure [X] non-hygienic [ ] visual [ ] beginner-friendly +[X] non-programmer-friendly [X] completely incomprehensible +programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work. + +You appear to believe that: +[X] Syntax is what makes programming difficult +[ ] Garbage collection is free [ ] Computers have infinite memory +[X] Nobody really needs: + [X] concurrency [ ] a REPL [X] debugger support [X] IDE support [X] I/O + [ ] to interact with code not written in your language +[ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII +[X] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy +[X] Convincing programmers to adopt a new language will be easy +[ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a language-specific IDE will be easy +[ ] Programmers love writing lots of boilerplate +[X] Specifying behaviors as "undefined" means that programmers won't rely on them +[X] "Spooky action at a distance" makes programming more fun + +Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks): +[X] comprehensible syntax [X] semicolons [ ] significant whitespace [ ] macros +[ ] implicit type conversion [ ] explicit casting [ ] type inference +[ ] goto [ ] exceptions [ ] closures [ ] tail recursion [ ] coroutines +[ ] reflection [ ] subtyping [ ] multiple inheritance [ ] operator overloading +[ ] algebraic datatypes [ ] recursive types [ ] polymorphic types +[ ] covariant array typing [ ] monads [ ] dependent types +[ ] infix operators [ ] nested comments [ ] multi-line strings [ ] regexes +[ ] call-by-value [ ] call-by-name [ ] call-by-reference [ ] call-cc + +The following philosophical objections apply: +[ ] Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!" +[ ] Programmers should not develop RSI from writing "Hello, World!" +[X] The most significant program written in your language is its own compiler +[ ] The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler +[X] No language spec +[ ] "The implementation is the spec" + [ ] The implementation is closed-source [ ] covered by patents [ ] not owned by you +[ ] Your type system is unsound [X] Your language cannot be unambiguously parsed + [ ] a proof of same is attached + [ ] invoking this proof crashes the compiler +[ ] The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google +[X] Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C +[X] Compiled languages will never be "extensible" +[X] Writing a compiler that understands English is AI-complete +[ ] Your language relies on an optimization which has never been shown possible +[ ] There are less than 100 programmers on Earth smart enough to use your language +[ ] ____________________________ takes exponential time +[ ] ____________________________ is known to be undecidable + +Your implementation has the following flaws: +[ ] CPUs do not work that way +[X] RAM does not work that way +[ ] VMs do not work that way +[ ] Compilers do not work that way +[ ] Compilers cannot work that way +[ ] Shift-reduce conflicts in parsing seem to be resolved using rand() +[X] You require the compiler to be present at runtime +[X] You require the language runtime to be present at compile-time +[ ] Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable +[ ] Dangerous behavior is only a warning +[ ] The compiler crashes if you look at it funny +[ ] The VM crashes if you look at it funny +[ ] You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques +[ ] You don't seem to understand basic systems programming +[ ] You don't seem to understand pointers +[ ] You don't seem to understand functions + +Additionally, your marketing has the following problems: +[ ] Unsupported claims of increased productivity +[ ] Unsupported claims of greater "ease of use" +[ ] Obviously rigged benchmarks + [ ] Graphics, simulation, or crypto benchmarks where your code just calls + handwritten assembly through your FFI + [ ] String-processing benchmarks where you just call PCRE + [ ] Matrix-math benchmarks where you just call BLAS +[X] Noone really believes that your language is faster than: + [X] assembly [X] C [ ] FORTRAN [ ] Java [ ] Ruby [ ] Prolog +[X] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification +[ ] Rejection of orthodox systems programming without justification +[ ] Rejection of orthodox algorithmic theory without justification +[ ] Rejection of basic computer science without justification + +Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that: +[ ] Your complex sample code would be one line in: _______________________ +[X] We already have an unsafe imperative language +[ ] We already have a safe imperative OO language +[ ] We already have a safe statically-typed eager functional language +[X] You have reinvented Lisp but worse +[ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse +[ ] You have reinvented Java but worse +[ ] You have reinvented C++ but worse +[ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse +[ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification +[X] You have reinvented Brainfuck but non-ironically + +In conclusion, this is what I think of you: +[ ] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly. +[ ] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it. +[X] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it. + + |