Why don't you just create your own programming language?

It seems you guys have issues with all programming languages including your favourites. So why not just create your own and use that for your programming?

>>19
1. Make an exact clone of the best existing language.
2. Fix everything that is still shitty about it.
3. Goto 2.
4. You have created a good programming language.

Exercise 1.51: Prove that the algorithm outlined in >>20 terminates.

>>19
You're wrong. Scheme is a good programming language.

>>21
Let A' be the algorithm based on >>20-san's and defined by the following instructions:
1. Make an exact clone of Scheme.
2. Read https://github.com/saniv/text/blob/master/criticism/lisp.txt and fix everything on it.
3. You have created a good programming language.

Since Nikita is too lazy to write/find another kopipe, A' is guaranteed to terminate.

You can design a good language, but you will never built a good community around it. Look at Haskell, it isn't a bad language, but the community is unhelpful, especially to the newbies without any math or programming exposure.

Why do you care about the community around a specific language? If you want to get friends that badly, go back to Facebook!

>>24

You will never understand the joy of being PHP coder.

>>22
Scheme is shit on many levels.

>>26
Please elaborate.

>>27
He (stupid male ape) wont.

>>28
stupid male app*

>>27
* slow
* not statically typed but not flexible either
* fragmented
* continuations a shit
* no threads in spec
* continuations create control flow that don't mix well with C apis for resources that are created and freed. You can't have an unwind protect like in lisp, or a finally clause.
* no support for object oriented programming.
* no method overloading. no clos
* let and let* a shit. let in general is verbose.
* libraries a shit
* allowed mutation of the global environment incurs overhead. (+ 2 3) can't just add 2 and 3. It needs to check if the value associated with '+ has been modified or not.
* lists a shit
* You are encouraged to use lists and vectors for everything. Just the basic built in datastructures. Without clos it isn't easy to build a hierarchy of datatypes. define-structure a shit.
* reverse a shit
* encourages immutable code, but allows mutations. The programmer is inconvenienced but the compiler doesn't get to take advantage of pure immutability.
* masturbating to sexp and purity
* no package system until r6rs and no one uses r6rs. Barely anyone uses scheme anyway.
* syntax-rules a shit. variable capture a shit. babby's first macro system.
* delay and force will be slow and shitty if you try to actually use them
* arithmetic uses big nums and is slow and shitty compared to fixnums if fixnums could have worked.
* optimizing compilers need to do whole program analysis to get any useful information about the program and slow as fuck, taking minutes to compile normal sized programs.
* (cons 2 3) not caught at compile time.

also scheme is probably my favorite language, if I had to pick one.

>>22
Scheme? Good? Doesn't even have a type system. Or a module system. Or a library.

>>30
The following are actually advantageous:

* no support for object oriented programming.
* masturbating to sexp and purity

>>20
No, because languages aren't modular and cannot be changed incrementally. A language is a whole lot of design trade-offs which are heavily intertwined and the only way to make a good language is to cut the knot and start from scratch. Just look at what horrible mess Scala is to see what happens when someone tries to do it your way.

>>32
R5RS + module system would be a good language
you can even - callcc, but just leave shift/reset for fun

as for type system.. what's a good language with a type system?

* SML: Academic language
* Ocaml: what's all this oo shit
* HASKAL: lol. joke language

>>35
Uhhh, C.

>>36
Uhhh, C is bad and not type safe

>>37
C is as typesafe as it needs to be

>>37
Uhhh, you little nigger, If C didn't exist then this conversation would not be happening.

>>39
Of course, you incestous white trash, if C didn't exist we wouldn't be complaining about ubiquitous software unsafety.

You geniuses can't even decide if you hate Lisp or Scheme more.

I frequently use s7 Scheme, FICL Forth, Lua all embedded gloriously in C, and my life is pure unmitigated bliss. My bliss is so glorious, it is envied by the gods. I have achieved satori, while you eat your heart out trying to figure out what to hate more.

>>40

white trash

S
S J W

>>42

That's not sjw, it's our resident resentful bitter little nigger.

>>43
Fuck you non-resentful non-bitter cunt.

>>35
SML is not academic, Haskell is not a joke. You should seriously rethink what your information sources are. Hackernews? Shitty blogs?

>>41
Saying Lua is satori is like saying Java is a playground, retard.

>>35
There ARE no good languages, with a type system or without it. But a well-developed type system is definitely a must for any would-be language. It's just a fact proven by practice.

>>45

Haskell is not a joke

heh have you written any real programs in it? what are they?

remember darcs?

>>47
What is a good language to you?

>>48
``real'' according to what? Your enterprise bullshit? Haskell is not a joke nor is it a general purpose programming language like C or Java. Learn to capitalize you nigger.

>>49
A good language is one that

(1) lets the skilled programmer write programs easily and obviously without errors (as opposed to without obvious errors); also to read other people's programs easily
(2) compiles to code fast enough to be run within reasonable time on available hardware
(3) has a large set of practically important libraries with full documentation

>>48

http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/

My enterprise bullshit?

what are you talking about

Haskell is not a joke

keep telling yourself that while you laugh about zygohistomorphic prepomorphisms with your friends as you write fibonacci calculations at cons

>>50
(3) is not a language quality unless you restrict it to the stdlib.

>>46
My bliss is pure and eternal. I create universes and cast spels with decadent impunity.
You with your complexity create nothing so long as you persist with cavorting in your own bile and hatred. I hope you will one day see the light brother, and we can experience satori together forever.

>>54
Enjoy your diabetes, dumbass.

>>55
I am confus


10 PRINT "Does this count? ",
20 INPUT A$
30 IF A$ NEQ "YES" GOTO 10


now try to compose a useful world where there's error handling mechanism, database access, logging, concurrency (or threads) management, message passing, http sockets... etc. but bare in mind your databse library uses different exception facility from http library. and logging uses different representation of text or bytestring from http responses.

with haskell's type system, you can express such world beautifully and obvious to application programmers. you can start with few of those words and compose them up to build actual application world where the main program runs in.

this is true beauty of dynamic languages like haskell where you have typeing system for describing computations and mangled way of expressing complete building from kitchen sink building blocks.

if you already see the problem, you're ready to learn purely functional languages like node.js with its invasive event driven programming paradigm that solves all programming problems with one silver bullet, that is mongodb.

>>53
It is a language quality from a practical standpoint. Languages are tools to express programs in, thus not being able to express programs due to lack of libraries or docs is a deficiency in the language. E.g. Python is shitty linguistically but has a lot of users going for it due to its richness of open-source libraries.

>>59
No, that's a quality of the system around the language, whether you are looking at it practically or not doesn't matter. You are able to express programs in a language regardless of the amount of libraries.

On a sidenote, Python's ``richness'' of libraries is pure marketing babble spewed by Python fanboys. Perl and C have way more of them.

>>60
With a good library or bindings to one you can express in 3 lines something which would take 3000 lines otherwise. So libraries are a quality of the language. They make much more programs expressible in the practically-finite amount of time.

And it isn't the libraries that let Python win over Perl and C, but libraries let it win over e.g. Scheme and Lua.
Perl loses to Python on point 1 (hard-to-read code and lack of OOP which makes life easier for many)
C loses to Python on point 1 (manual memory management means lots of unobvious mistakes and dealing with pointers is hard) but wins on point 2 but there are areas where point 2 is very elastic.
Scheme and Lua lose to Python on point 3 (no comparable libraries).
Ruby is pretty much a match to Python except a moderate weakness on point 3 (no SciPy or NumPy, for instance).

>>61
No, it isn't. The capability of a language to express programs doesn't change if additional reusable programs are expressed in it. This isn't a hard concept so I don't know why you are struggling with it. A programming language doesn't even require a working implementation in order to be good at expressing programs.

I'm making my own language, it's called scheme
it's an implementation of scheme..
in scheme

>>58
What the fuck is an HTTP socket?

>>64
it's a TCP socket intended for HTTP use

Languages live because of marketing and industry support.
You can't spam the language or force it down everyones throat(Ada as illustrative example). You need the language to spread on the merit of its usefulness. Viral marketing is the key:
To get free viral marketing, you need a large vibrant community.
To get a large community you need to satisfy joe average programmer.Simple languages like C,Java,C#,Python,C++,PHP,Ruby,etc do satisfy him.

Every autist language ever is designed to be as newbie-unfriendly as possible, with cryptic syntax, highly abstract interfaces,etc.
It doesn't really matter if the autismlang(like APL) is powerful and expressive. The key quality is the coding is not simple in it, and reading isn't. Mental effort for joe average programmer is above threshold and the language is left in the dust.
With no popularity and no interest from the industry to support it, the language fades into obscurity, sometimes supported by academia or a company investing in the language.
Now why would you spend effort(like Nikita and Symta) to create the powerful autismlang that will never be popular?

>>1

The biggest issue with my faves is ecosystem and community. Making a new language would only make that worse.

>>63
A programming language can't be implementation of another.

>>66

Now why would you spend effort(like Nikita and Symta) to create the powerful autismlang that will never be popular?

So you can keep it to yourself and enjoy writing in it during long winter evenings whilst sipping on red wine and listening to Balmorhea.