lang-checklist.txt

{
    title       : Language Design Checklist
    description : A Usenet Classic
}

Language Design Checklist
-------------------------

This is a classic, so I need to put it here.

    You appear to be advocating a new:
    [ ] functional  [x] imperative  [ ] object-oriented  [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based
    [x] "multi-paradigm"  [ ] lazy  [x] eager  [x] 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:
    [ ] Syntax is what makes programming difficult
    [ ] Garbage collection is free                [ ] Computers have infinite memory
    [ ] Nobody really needs:
        [x] concurrency  [x] a REPL  [x] debugger support  [x] IDE support  [ ] I/O
        [x] to interact with code not written in your language
    [ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII
    [ ] 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
    [ ] 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):
    [N] comprehensible syntax  [Y] semicolons  [N] significant whitespace  [N] macros
    [N] implicit type conversion  [Y] explicit casting  [Y] type inference
    [Y] goto  [N] exceptions  [Y] closures  [N] tail recursion  [N] coroutines
    [Y] reflection  [N] subtyping  [N] multiple inheritance  [N] operator overloading
    [Y] algebraic datatypes  [Y] recursive types  [N] polymorphic types
    [N] covariant array typing  [N] monads  [N] dependent types
    [Y] infix operators  [Y] nested comments  [N] multi-line strings  [Y] regexes (lib)
    [Y] call-by-value  [N] call-by-name  [N] call-by-reference  [N] 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!"
    [ ] The most significant program written in your language is its own compiler
    [x] 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
    [x] Your type system is unsound  [ ] Your language cannot be unambiguously parsed
    [ ] a proof of same is attached
    [x] invoking this proof crashes the compiler
    [ ] The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google
    [ ] Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C
    [x] Compiled languages will never be "extensible"
    [ ] 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
    [ ] RAM does not work that way
    [ ] VMs do not work that way
    [x] Compilers do not work that way
    [ ] Compilers cannot work that way
    [ ] Shift-reduce conflicts in parsing seem to be resolved using rand()
    [ ] You require the compiler to be present at runtime
    [ ] You require the language runtime to be present at compile-time
    [x] Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable
    [x] Dangerous behavior is only a warning
    [x] The compiler crashes if you look at it funny
    [ ] The VM crashes if you look at it funny
    [x] 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
    [x] 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"
    [x] 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  [x] FORTRAN  [x] Java  [ ] Ruby  [ ] Prolog
    [x] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification
    [x] 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:
    [x] 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
    [ ] You have reinvented Lisp but worse
    [ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse
    [ ] You have reinvented Java but worse
    [x] You have reinvented C++ but worse
    [ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse
    [ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification
    [ ] 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.
    [x] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it.
    [ ] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.