Language Design Checklist for Futhark
Inspired by Myrddin, here is the Language Design Checklist for Futhark:
You appear to be advocating a new:
[x] functional [ ] imperative [ ] object-oriented [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based
[ ] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [x] eager [x] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed
[x] pure [ ] impure [ ] non-hygienic [ ] visual [ ] beginner-friendly
[ ] non-programmer-friendly [ ] 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 [x] Computers have infinite memory
[ ] Nobody really needs:
[x] concurrency [x] 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
[ ] 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
[ ] "Spooky action at a distance" makes programming more fun
Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks):
[Y] comprehensible syntax [N] semicolons [N] significant whitespace [N] macros
[N] implicit type conversion [Y] explicit casting [Y] type inference
[N] goto [N] exceptions [N] closures [N] tail recursion [N] coroutines
[N] reflection [N] subtyping [N] multiple inheritance [N] operator overloading
[N] algebraic datatypes [N] recursive types [Y] polymorphic types
[N] covariant array typing [N] monads [N] dependent types
[Y] infix operators [N] nested comments [N] multi-line strings [N] 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
[ ] Your type system is unsound [ ] 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
[ ] 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
[x] 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:
[x] 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
[ ] 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
[ ] 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 [ ] Java [ ] Ruby [ ] Prolog
[ ] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification
[x] Rejection of orthodox systems programming without justification
[x] 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: __APL__________________
[ ] We already have an unsafe imperative language
[ ] We already have a safe imperative OO language
[x] 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
[ ] 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:
[x] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly.
[ ] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it.
[ ] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.Although at least the “relies on an optimization which has never been shown possible” should become decrasingly true over time!