Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 23:15 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
General Development "Programming languages are living phenomena: They're born, the lucky ones that don't die in infancy live sometimes long, fruitful lives, and then inevitably enter a period of decline. Unlike real life, the decline can last many, many years as the presence of large legacy codebases means practiced hands must tend the code for decades. The more popular the language once was, the longer this period of decline will be."
Permalink for comment 548830
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by RareBreed
by torbenm on Tue 15th Jan 2013 10:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by RareBreed"
Member since:

I started programming in 1975 with BASIC and COMAL and then later Pascal, FORTRAN, COBOL and assembly language at university. On the third year of university, I was taught LISP and was immediately sold. I have also used C, Java, Scheme, ML, Haskell and a dozen less known languages. I tend to use mainly Standard ML. Though it is not purely functional and rather less advanced than Haskell, I like its simplicity: I find that Haskell has evolved to a testbench for weird language and type features so people can write extremely generic programs that you need a PhD to understand.

Standard ML is, however, rather dated. Some attempts at revising it has been made, but they have, IMO, failed mainly by trying to add too many new features to the language. Then there are what I would call misguided derivatives (O'Caml and F#) that add object-oriented features to the language. I would rather see a minimal update that solves some of the more pressing problems (such as lack of Unicode support) and a more modern standard library. And parallelism, of course.

Reply Parent Score: 2