Name: Anonymous 2018-04-05 13:05
[ ]Only one implementation
[ ]No standards or arbitrary standard changes each version
[ ]No backward/forward compatibility
[ ]Lacks metaprogramming facilities with no intention to implement them.
[ ]Language is spread only through academia
[ ]Language is described as experimental
[ ]Language creators avoid performance benchmarks or comparison with other languages
[ ]Sponsored by one entity that dictates the terms of its development
[ ]Depends on proprietary tools
[ ]Third-party code dependencies dictate the capabilities of the language
[ ]Only available on one platform or alpha quality on everything besides the developers preferred OS/Platform.
[ ]Developers actively refuse to implement features common to similar languages or paradigm
[ ]Developers abide by a strict ideology that dictates all aspects of language
[ ]Project refuses to use code under slightly different copyright than theirs
[ ]Language page has a spotlight for all projects using it, however minute the influence
[ ]The language standard library is a giant kitchen sink OS-level project with different people building small parts of it in parallel
[ ]The language standard library is just a minimal stub that exports libc/OS bindings and developers suppose to invent their own wheels
[ ]Language is described as extremely/thread/memory safe, theorem proven, uncrashable or immune to existing computing security problems, despite many bugs found/documented in its implementation.
[ ]Language development is utterly dependent on one website or one service(e.g. github) without which it cannot function.
[ ]Language cannot be extended without ugly hacks and syntax is usually set in stone
[ ]Operator/Function/Class overloading is absent and derided by authors of languages
[ ]Authors hold an obvious grudge for a successful mainstream language they suppose to replace
[ ]Authors publish personal blog posts on same site where development/news/updates are published
[ ]Language syntax introduce many obscure and single-use operators
[ ]Language replaces operators with functions or objects
[ ]Language refuses to support features "too close to hardware"
[ ]Language cannot be installed without manually tinkering with config files/scripts
[ ]Language is described as "educational"
[ ]Language development depends on unstable funding sources
[ ]Language developers adopt open-source code and rewrite it to the point of incompatibility with the original
[ ]Language developers adopt open-source code and adapt the language/standard library to fully accommodate the new code in its pristine glory, carefully updating it with the original's changes
[ ]Language developers refuse to adopt open-source code unless the remote authors bow to their whims and demands(despite that the code never been produced for the language)
[ ]Militant language evangelists invade forums, newsgroups and chats in hamfisted attempts to advertise the superiority of their language
[ ]Militant language evangelists invade forums, newsgroups and chats and argue with other language proponents over the deficiencies in their languages
[ ]Language has a steep learning curve that persists with experience
[ ]Language purists dictate the terms of language development regardless of practical needs
[ ]Language is rewritten every months to suit current practical needs
[ ]Language clearly promotes an agenda that suppose to "change computing" or support a clear political sentiment that has nothing to do with technical quality of the language
[ ]Language requires rewriting and updating your code to each new version
[ ]Language accommodates all versions of code from its beginning, regardless of cost or size of compiler/parser
[ ]Language considers that certain programming practices that lead to errors invalid, but refuses to issue errors or diagnostic
[ ]Language considers anything straying from a central paradigm an error or violation of language rules. Developers eagerly "correct" unexpected but useful misuse of language to expand its capabilities or expressive power.
[ ]Language cannot be debugged without specific combination of software and build scripts.
[ ]Language lacks an interface to common hardware and emulates its existence as abstract device that is an ancient version of the hardware in question
[ ]Language is dependent on access to current day top-end hardware components/cards. Language developers refuse to accommodate less recent hardware than their own.
.
[ ]No standards or arbitrary standard changes each version
[ ]No backward/forward compatibility
[ ]Lacks metaprogramming facilities with no intention to implement them.
[ ]Language is spread only through academia
[ ]Language is described as experimental
[ ]Language creators avoid performance benchmarks or comparison with other languages
[ ]Sponsored by one entity that dictates the terms of its development
[ ]Depends on proprietary tools
[ ]Third-party code dependencies dictate the capabilities of the language
[ ]Only available on one platform or alpha quality on everything besides the developers preferred OS/Platform.
[ ]Developers actively refuse to implement features common to similar languages or paradigm
[ ]Developers abide by a strict ideology that dictates all aspects of language
[ ]Project refuses to use code under slightly different copyright than theirs
[ ]Language page has a spotlight for all projects using it, however minute the influence
[ ]The language standard library is a giant kitchen sink OS-level project with different people building small parts of it in parallel
[ ]The language standard library is just a minimal stub that exports libc/OS bindings and developers suppose to invent their own wheels
[ ]Language is described as extremely/thread/memory safe, theorem proven, uncrashable or immune to existing computing security problems, despite many bugs found/documented in its implementation.
[ ]Language development is utterly dependent on one website or one service(e.g. github) without which it cannot function.
[ ]Language cannot be extended without ugly hacks and syntax is usually set in stone
[ ]Operator/Function/Class overloading is absent and derided by authors of languages
[ ]Authors hold an obvious grudge for a successful mainstream language they suppose to replace
[ ]Authors publish personal blog posts on same site where development/news/updates are published
[ ]Language syntax introduce many obscure and single-use operators
[ ]Language replaces operators with functions or objects
[ ]Language refuses to support features "too close to hardware"
[ ]Language cannot be installed without manually tinkering with config files/scripts
[ ]Language is described as "educational"
[ ]Language development depends on unstable funding sources
[ ]Language developers adopt open-source code and rewrite it to the point of incompatibility with the original
[ ]Language developers adopt open-source code and adapt the language/standard library to fully accommodate the new code in its pristine glory, carefully updating it with the original's changes
[ ]Language developers refuse to adopt open-source code unless the remote authors bow to their whims and demands(despite that the code never been produced for the language)
[ ]Militant language evangelists invade forums, newsgroups and chats in hamfisted attempts to advertise the superiority of their language
[ ]Militant language evangelists invade forums, newsgroups and chats and argue with other language proponents over the deficiencies in their languages
[ ]Language has a steep learning curve that persists with experience
[ ]Language purists dictate the terms of language development regardless of practical needs
[ ]Language is rewritten every months to suit current practical needs
[ ]Language clearly promotes an agenda that suppose to "change computing" or support a clear political sentiment that has nothing to do with technical quality of the language
[ ]Language requires rewriting and updating your code to each new version
[ ]Language accommodates all versions of code from its beginning, regardless of cost or size of compiler/parser
[ ]Language considers that certain programming practices that lead to errors invalid, but refuses to issue errors or diagnostic
[ ]Language considers anything straying from a central paradigm an error or violation of language rules. Developers eagerly "correct" unexpected but useful misuse of language to expand its capabilities or expressive power.
[ ]Language cannot be debugged without specific combination of software and build scripts.
[ ]Language lacks an interface to common hardware and emulates its existence as abstract device that is an ancient version of the hardware in question
[ ]Language is dependent on access to current day top-end hardware components/cards. Language developers refuse to accommodate less recent hardware than their own.
.