the great list of languages that are dead

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
evilbeanfiend
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
Location: the old world

the great list of languages that are dead

Postby evilbeanfiend » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:35 pm UTC

perl 1987 - 2007

perl was the ugly offspring of larry wall and c, awk, sed + lisp, perl immediately gained fame as a 'glue' language allowing disparate systems to be tacked together despite any design. perl's motto was often said to be "there is more than one way to do it" a reference to perls redundant design. sadly perl suffered from chronic being completely unmaintainable, competition with new, younger, fitter scripting languages eventually led to ill health. perl is survived by CPAN and various little useful snippets of code around the world.

R.I.P perl :cry:
in ur beanz makin u eveel

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby EvanED » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:37 pm UTC

evilbeanfiend wrote:perl 1987 - 2007

perl was the ugly offspring of larry wall and c, awk, sed + lisp, perl immediately gained fame as a 'glue' language allowing disparate systems to be tacked together despite any design. perl's motto was often said to be "there is more than one way to do it" a reference to perls redundant design. sadly perl suffered from chronic being completely unmaintainable, competition with new, younger, fitter scripting languages eventually led to ill health. perl is survived by CPAN and various little useful snippets of code around the world.

R.I.P perl :cry:

Unfortunately, I don't think this is true. Clearly Perl is not dead. It just should be dead. ;-)

User avatar
pieaholicx
The cake is a lie!
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:51 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby pieaholicx » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:41 pm UTC

Perl's not dead, and I don't think it'll really ever die. It's the language that will keep haunting us for all time.
It's okay, I'm Chaotic Neutral. I can kill him over the loot.
Overexposure to pieaholicx may, in semi-rare cases, emancipate dental fillings, crowns, tooth enamel, and teeth.

User avatar
evilbeanfiend
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
Location: the old world

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby evilbeanfiend » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:41 pm UTC

meh, mumble mumble poetic licence, mumble mumble only lives on in zombie form. anyway this is a religious wars thread, it doesn't matter if i'm right only that i believe i am strongly enough!
in ur beanz makin u eveel

User avatar
pieaholicx
The cake is a lie!
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:51 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby pieaholicx » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:49 pm UTC

evilbeanfiend wrote:meh, mumble mumble poetic licence, mumble mumble only lives on in zombie form. anyway this is a religious wars thread, it doesn't matter if i'm right only that i believe i am strongly enough!

Damn! You have found the one weakness of this debate!

Anyway, on the subject of dead languages, and zombies, I present a language that never lived: Zombie. I seriously think that had this have lived, I would've used it.
It's okay, I'm Chaotic Neutral. I can kill him over the loot.
Overexposure to pieaholicx may, in semi-rare cases, emancipate dental fillings, crowns, tooth enamel, and teeth.

User avatar
evilbeanfiend
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
Location: the old world

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby evilbeanfiend » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:39 pm UTC

hmm zombie certainly seems strange. R.I.P. zombie you never really lived.
in ur beanz makin u eveel

User avatar
pieaholicx
The cake is a lie!
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:51 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby pieaholicx » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:41 pm UTC

evilbeanfiend wrote:hmm zombie certainly seems strange.

Weird it may be, but what other language can claim "The language must be inherently evil." as a design principle?
It's okay, I'm Chaotic Neutral. I can kill him over the loot.
Overexposure to pieaholicx may, in semi-rare cases, emancipate dental fillings, crowns, tooth enamel, and teeth.

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby d3adf001 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:57 pm UTC

Unfortunately I think C has its days numbered. All of these highlevel languages are coming out. its a real shame. i really dont see the point of getting to this level of abstraction. I use to think C was really cool then i had C++ classes and it made me lazy. im pretty sure oop is making coders worse,

User avatar
evilbeanfiend
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
Location: the old world

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby evilbeanfiend » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:03 pm UTC

c is still pretty much alive in the OS and embedded spaces. it is pretty dead for anything not running 'on the metal' though.
in ur beanz makin u eveel

User avatar
the Cow
Today India, tomorrow the world!
Posts: 2199
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby the Cow » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:04 pm UTC

Some actually dead (or on extreme life support) languages, off the top of my head:

Dead:
COMAL - Invented by Commodore Computer, was never actually used, died before they did
Jovial - A language invented by the Airforce, prompting the invention ADA to prevent further invention of languages by the Airforce.
Pilot - A language intended for use by teachers. Died because no one taught it to the teachers.
PLM - A version of PL1 intended for PCs. PCs didn't want PL1.

Not dead, but practically never used:
Forth - Epson made a whole operating system in Forth. It was called Valdocs. Didn't work.
Smalltalk - Maybe not dead yet, but has fallen from its predicted position of becoming "the language of the future".
Logo - Smalltalk's little sister for kids

Not dead, but only used in very special circumstance:
Pascal - Was resurrected by Borland, briefly.
Modula2 - Sigh, all structure of Pascal and non of its purity
Lisp - Academia only (please!)
Fortran - Can't be killed, runs almost every industry
Cobol - Can't be killed, counts your money
RPG - Can't be killed, tells bankers how much of your money they have
ASM - Especially assembly on non-x86 chips (what a shame, I miss it)
ADA - Mandated by the military, hardly ever used by the military
Objective C - C and Smalltalk combined, what joy!

On the "hit list":
Any language promoted by "Computer Language" magazine as being the "Language of the Future".
...the whim of a hat.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby EvanED » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:06 pm UTC

d3adf001 wrote:Unfortunately I think C has its days numbered. All of these highlevel languages are coming out. its a real shame. i really dont see the point of getting to this level of abstraction. I use to think C was really cool then i had C++ classes and it made me lazy. im pretty sure oop is making coders worse,

OOP isn't making coders worse, but it may be lowering the entrance bar, which means that there are people who aren't as good. It's almost certainly raised the quality of code in the wild.

the Cow wrote:Lisp - Academia only (please!)

There are at least several real-world programs that are written in a Lisp dialect. AutoCAD has a Lisp interpreter for instance.

User avatar
pieaholicx
The cake is a lie!
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:51 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby pieaholicx » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:09 pm UTC

EvanED wrote:
d3adf001 wrote:Unfortunately I think C has its days numbered. All of these highlevel languages are coming out. its a real shame. i really dont see the point of getting to this level of abstraction. I use to think C was really cool then i had C++ classes and it made me lazy. im pretty sure oop is making coders worse,

OOP isn't making coders worse, but it may be lowering the entrance bar, which means that there are people who aren't as good. It's almost certainly raised the quality of code in the wild.

I can agree with this. Especially after seeing some of the people succeed in my Java courses, but you try to talk to them about anything really technical, and they get the deer in headlights look. However, you look at real coders working in higher level languages, and you see good code.
It's okay, I'm Chaotic Neutral. I can kill him over the loot.
Overexposure to pieaholicx may, in semi-rare cases, emancipate dental fillings, crowns, tooth enamel, and teeth.

User avatar
the Cow
Today India, tomorrow the world!
Posts: 2199
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby the Cow » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:32 pm UTC

I'm not so sure. When I learned C, in the early 1980s, there were many people predicting its demise. In the last 25 years I have seen many more large projects written in C, C++, Fortran (sigh), and Cobol (double sigh) than in all the other languages combined. Even if we (the professional programmers) never start another project in C again, we will all be writing in C for many many years to come.

If freshmeat is any indicator (while it is Unix centric, it is also relatively recent), here are the programming languages used on all of the freshmeat projects, in order by language popularity:

8855 C
5816 Java
4871 C++
4286 PHP
3779 Perl
2924 Python
1066 JavaScript
1017 Unix Shell
547 SQL
500 Tcl
438 Ruby
383 Objective C
304 C#
293 Other
255 Assembly
165 Other Scripting Engines
148 Scheme
97 PL/SQL
92 Lisp
88 OCaml
85 Fortran
80 Delphi
75 Haskell
65 Common Lisp
54 Ada
60 Emacs-Lisp
59 Pascal
54 Awk
51 Zope
47 ASP
45 Visual Basic
40 Lua
37 Basic
34 Eiffel
33 ML
29 Object Pascal
29 Smalltalk
28 Forth
27 YACC
26 Cold Fusion
26 Groovy
25 Prolog
24 Erlang
14 Pike
12 REALbasic
12 Rexx
11 Modula
8 D
7 Euphoria
6 Gambas
6 Logo
4 PROGRESS
3 APL
3 Rebol
2 Dylan
1 Clipper
1 Euler
1 Pliant
1 Simula
1 XBasic
...the whim of a hat.

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby d3adf001 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:19 pm UTC

the Cow wrote:1066 JavaScript


WTF? No but I didnt say its dead. i hope it doesnt die. I just foresee stuff like python pretty much displacing C. when this happens it will be a sad day

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby Kizyr » Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:21 pm UTC

the Cow wrote:Fortran - Can't be killed, runs almost every industry
Cobol - Can't be killed, counts your money

Oh how I wish neither of these were true... KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
pieaholicx
The cake is a lie!
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:51 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby pieaholicx » Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:27 pm UTC

the Cow wrote:54 Ada
47 ASP
45 Visual Basic

I'd like to take a moment to point out the awesome here.
It's okay, I'm Chaotic Neutral. I can kill him over the loot.
Overexposure to pieaholicx may, in semi-rare cases, emancipate dental fillings, crowns, tooth enamel, and teeth.

User avatar
Matthias
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:55 am UTC
Location: Out of context, probably.
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby Matthias » Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:28 am UTC

Does QBASIC count?

Code: Select all

LET COUNT = 1

MORE:

PRINT COUNT

LET COUNT = COUNT + 1

IF COUNT > 0 THEN GOTO MORE

END


Well, I guess it does now (haha, I suck. I actually had to look that up.)
Love may be blind, but lust has x-ray vision.
Avatar shamelessly plucked from PMOG.

Also, it turns out I'm not dead--I'm just a right bastard who disappears from the internet for months at a time every so often.

User avatar
the Cow
Today India, tomorrow the world!
Posts: 2199
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby the Cow » Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:50 am UTC

I'm not sure any BASIC (it is an acronym - sigh) "counts" unless you must use line numbers and variables can only be two letters long and variable type is controlled by the actual variable names (integers must start with "i" and strings must end with "$", all else is a float) and whitespace and comments makes it run slower.

Code: Select all

10 ia=1
20 print ia
30 ia=ia+1
40 if ia<10 then goto 20
50 mm$="jeez"
60 print mm$


Thats counting.
...the whim of a hat.

++$_
Mo' Money
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:06 am UTC

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby ++$_ » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:06 am UTC

d3adf001 wrote:I just foresee stuff like python pretty much displacing C. when this happens it will be a sad day
That is a very weird thought, as those two languages are basically diametrically opposed and used for completely different tasks. Python is just too slow to do things that need to be done in C in.

How do you like that last sentence, huh, grammar police?

Also, Perl is very far from dead. Sure, lots of people use Python and PHP now, but a lot more people, in general, are coding now.

(If you have any Perl programs that need maintaining, I'm not-exactly-seriously offering to do it for you, just to prove that Perl is maintainable. They do have to have been written by competent developers, though.)

EDIT: Why is "Unix Shell" so high on that list? That's why we have Perl.

User avatar
davean
Site Ninja
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:50 am UTC
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby davean » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:25 am UTC

$_[0] wrote:EDIT: Why is "Unix Shell" so high on that list? That's why we have Perl.


Because even shell, the canonical use once language is more maintainable then perl.

photosinensis
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:17 am UTC

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby photosinensis » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:23 am UTC

davean wrote:
$_0 wrote:EDIT: Why is "Unix Shell" so high on that list? That's why we have Perl.


Because even shell, the canonical use once language is more maintainable then perl.



Also, Perl's syntax for launching an operating system program is a bit arcane. I can just spawn() something off from bash. Also, there is a certain music in bash shell scripts--particularly the quick and dirty ones that keep your server running.

Then, there are the languages I consider dead:

Java (particularly Microsoft's J# dialect, which nobody cares about anyway)
C#
Assembler (particularly x86, because it's so bad that nobody would want to write in it)
LRR (A prof's pet project that will never get off the ground because it sucks so badly--the interpreter can't even be installed to /usr/bin without segfaulting!)
Most of those damn functional languages (well, except the Lisps--only the French use Caml/Ocaml, and that's because they're used to writing unreadable stuff)

Sorry, but I really couldn't get into the way Backus wanted me to write. I just think imperatively.

C/C++ FOREVER! Okay, I'll let bash, Python, and Ruby in, too, as I need those for a large chunk of what I do, too.
Last edited by Hammer on Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed quote tags
While I clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning,
And my heart was filled with mournng, mourning for my dear amour.
"'Tis not possible!" I uttered, "Give me back my free hardcore!"
Quoth the server: 404.

User avatar
Aviatrix
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:16 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby Aviatrix » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:08 am UTC

TUTOR, so dead you didn't know it existed (although programs written in TUTOR are still in use today in some very specialized situations).

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby EvanED » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:33 am UTC

photosinensis wrote:Then, there are the languages I consider dead:

Java (particularly Microsoft's J# dialect, which nobody cares about anyway)

Um, you have a weird definition of "dead". (Except with regard to J#. That qualifies.)

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby d3adf001 » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:57 pm UTC

$_[0] wrote:[That is a very weird thought, as those two languages are basically diametrically opposed and used for completely different tasks. Python is just too slow to do things that need to be done in C in.


have you forgotten that processors are getting faster and have more memory? OOP takes more overhead that procedural but people still use OOP

edit: i meant processors must have been a freudian slip
Last edited by d3adf001 on Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Rysto
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:07 am UTC

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby Rysto » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:01 pm UTC

C++ doesn't have that much overhead over C. An interpreted language, on the other hand, is orders of magnitude slower. There are plenty of applications out there that need all the performance they can reasonably get(I work on one). Using an interpreted language for such things is entirely out of the question.

User avatar
Hammer
Because all of you look like nails.
Posts: 5491
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:32 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby Hammer » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:22 pm UTC

d3adf001 wrote:have you forgotten that professors are getting faster and have more memory?

They are? They do? Cool!
"What's wrong with you mathematicians? Cake is never a problem."

User avatar
Cheese
and spam. (Euggh)
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Location: ¿burning you?

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby Cheese » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:27 pm UTC

the Cow wrote:(On languages)
293 Other

...wait, what?
hermaj wrote:No-one. Will. Be. Taking. Cheese's. Spot.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Cheese is utterly correct on all fronts.
SecondTalon wrote:That thing that Cheese just said. Do that.
Meaux_Pas wrote:I hereby disagree and declare Cheese to be brilliant.
Image

User avatar
davean
Site Ninja
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:50 am UTC
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby davean » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:55 am UTC

Processors are getting faster? Thats nice, have you noted that programs are getting slower faster? Interesting, huh? Maybe it is crappy programmers using high level OOP based languages to blame for our slowing computers.

User avatar
schrodingersduck
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:20 pm UTC
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Leodensia
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby schrodingersduck » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:00 pm UTC

pieaholicx wrote:
evilbeanfiend wrote:hmm zombie certainly seems strange.

Weird it may be, but what other language can claim "The language must be inherently evil." as a design principle?


You've clearly never heard of brainfuck or FALSE.

User avatar
pieaholicx
The cake is a lie!
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:51 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby pieaholicx » Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:56 pm UTC

schrodingersduck wrote:
pieaholicx wrote:
evilbeanfiend wrote:hmm zombie certainly seems strange.

Weird it may be, but what other language can claim "The language must be inherently evil." as a design principle?


You've clearly never heard of brainfuck or FALSE.

You're wrong. Neither of those list "The language must be inherently evil." as a specific design principle. FALSE's only objectives/design principles are "confusing everyone with an obfuscated syntax, and designing an as powerful language as possible with a tiny implementation", and the only objective I can find for Brainfuck is "to create a Turing-complete language for which he could write the smallest compiler ever". If you view Zombie's page it literally lists that it must be evil under a design principles section.

Sure those languages may be evil, but they aren't designed to be evil. Just compact.
It's okay, I'm Chaotic Neutral. I can kill him over the loot.
Overexposure to pieaholicx may, in semi-rare cases, emancipate dental fillings, crowns, tooth enamel, and teeth.

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby d3adf001 » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

just to clear everything up i meant to say processors

User avatar
wing
the /b/slayer
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 5:56 am UTC

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby wing » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:37 pm UTC

davean wrote:Processors are getting faster? Thats nice, have you noted that programs are getting slower faster? Interesting, huh? Maybe it is crappy programmers using high level OOP based languages to blame for our slowing computers.

I'd blame the fucking crappy programmers first.

One project (Java) I'm working on, our GUI programming team decided to write 2700 lines of code. To MOCK UP the interface - with no fucking functionality. During the course of my team (the logic team)'s hooking the logic into the GUI, we also optimized (read: REWROTE) the GUI code. The GUI is now 600 lines long, looks exactly the same, and actually functions now. And it's not like the GUI team used some tool to put things together for them - they actually did that mess by hand. Intentionally. Thinking it was the best way.

Some common issues I ran into were:
-Excessive use of class-scoped variables and objects. Literally *EVERYTHING* had class scope, whether it needed it or not.
-NO use of looping or arrays, so craptons of code duplication.
-NO use of returns. Every method's output was stored to a class-scoped variable or object.
-Use of characters as flags. This isn't always a bad thing, but, uh, when the only permissible values of the flag are 'Y' and 'N' you should be using a fucking boolean. Does anybody even bother teaching booleans anymore!? And it turns out that these flags weren't necessary in the first fucking place. Totally. Fucking. redundant.
-Use of STRINGS as flags. For instance, the user can select an "active" object on the screen. When they do this, the flag is set to the name of the object. But why the fuck do we need to do that anyway, when you can just set a fucking object pointer at the active object?
-There were plenty of methods to reset things to defaults when no code existed to change them away from the defaults. And they were all called at every possible opportunity.
-Excessive repainting of the screen. A method call to a GUI object would implicitly invoke a repaint. and then the next line would be an explicit repaint. and then after stepping out of that method, there would be another repaint. Followed by another iteration through the same thing. As opposed to, say, letting the implicit repaints do their thing, or to be safe, just doing one repaint at the end.
-Extraction of strings from objects to populate a drop-down box, and then re-searching all the possible objects to reassociate that string to the correct object. As opposed to... You know, populating the drop-down box with the objects themselves. So what if the toString() method isn't defined - go ask the fucking team responsible for them to define it... LIKE WE DID TO FIX THE FUCKING MESS. It only took 45 seconds for them to do it.
-Orphan code. Lots of it.
-Redundant methods. For example, there's a drawSomePane() - which is invoked when initially contructing the GUI. and then there's a redrawSomePane() - which is line-for-line identical to drawSomePane() - but is invoked every time the pane needs to be redrawn.

We aren't even talking about efficient algorithms here. We're talking about total lack of common fucking sense.

As a result, my team put in 80 more hours than we needed to. Just think about how much that would have cost to fix in the real world, rather than an academic setting. And then think about why, if this were real, we would have been told not to fix it. Now imagine that every major project has at least one team member that does that sort of crap. And then imagine what happens when you have a team DOMINATED by them.

Yeah. Crappy coders can have such a terrible impact that a native app can run worse than an interpreted app. I don't know if you remember Netscape 7 in it's early days. You know, the Netscape that was written in Java. The Netscape/Mozilla team had begun their descent into crappy-coderland, and then decided to try out this VM'd language. The combination of the two elements simply caused NOTHING but slowness. Netscape 3 on my 33MHz 68LC040 (that's a 68040 with no FPU) Mac was WAY faster than Netscape 7 on my 550Mhz K6-2 PC. Thank god they went back to using a native language, or else I'd probably be bitching even harder over in the Browsers thread.

IMO, complicated windowing and GUI toolkits do a lot more to add to slowness than the language, because often, they themselves are poorly coded and all the bells and whistles available to the... slower... developers distract them from thinking about the things that are really important.
I AM A SEXY, SHOELESS GOD OF WAR!
Akula wrote:Our team has turned into this hate-fueled juggernaut of profit. It's goddamn wonderful.

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby d3adf001 » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:54 pm UTC

davean wrote:Processors are getting faster? Thats nice, have you noted that programs are getting slower faster? Interesting, huh? Maybe it is crappy programmers using high level OOP based languages to blame for our slowing computers.


That is exactly what i was trying to say in my clusterfuck of a reply

photosinensis
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:17 am UTC

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby photosinensis » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:03 am UTC

To be completely fair, though, programs are getting far more complicated. Does anyone remember when Firefox was just a browser instead of the virtual all-in-one that the extensions system has turned it into? I've noticed that if I cut back on the extensions to things that are really useful, such as Adblock, FAYT fixer, and (to a lesser extent) Tabbrowser Preferences, I get a much faster and more responsive Firefox than I do with the crapload of extensions that most people I see having problems use.

The same is true pretty much everywhere else. I remember when it didn't take 30 minutes for MS Office to load on my box, back in 1997. OpenOffice today is a bit better, but it's still got a bit of bloat. The fact is that everybody wants one program to rule them all, and this just doesn't work. The most responsive programs on any of my boxen are the ones that do one thing and do it well. grep is much faster than Spotlight is on my Mac, for example, and we won't even talk about Beagle on my Linux box. It's a disgrace, pure and simple.

So the problem with slow programs is not just the programmers being incompetent and/or using naturally slower languages, but the fact that users want stuff that will naturally be slower. The problem is that coders haven't ever bothered to explain to people what's going on and the limits imposed on them by the systems we're coding on.
While I clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning,
And my heart was filled with mournng, mourning for my dear amour.
"'Tis not possible!" I uttered, "Give me back my free hardcore!"
Quoth the server: 404.

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: the great list of languages that are dead

Postby d3adf001 » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:15 am UTC

photosinensis wrote:Does anyone remember when Firefox was just a browser instead of the virtual all-in-one that the extensions system has turned it into?


Yes. I really hate all this firefox bloat. what it really should do is just give the browser and have it modular. Kind of like openwrt. if i dont want the search box, book marks and something else i dont install that. but if i want everything i install it all


Return to “Religious Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests