# Programming Language Checklist

https://www.famicol.in/language_checklist.html

I will start the ball rolling. Any more to check?

The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google

3 Likes

You require the compiler to be present at runtime

I don’t see why that is bad though. Julia also provides the compiler at runtime, so it is available.

1 Like

significant whitespace

(For example: [1 -1] ≠ [1 - 1].)

Not as bad as Python, though.

1 Like

Garbage collection is free
“Spooky action at a distance” makes programming more fun (type piracy)
Matrix-math benchmarks where you just call BLAS
No language spec
“The implementation is the spec”

5 Likes

I don’t understand why not having an (independent, formal) specification is considered unusual for a new language.

It is pretty much impossible to create a nontrivial and novel language with a finalized spec. Either it is going to be super-simple like Scheme, a \epsilon improvement on an existing language, or take 15–20 years until someone bothers to do an official spec (eg C or Common Lisp).

When done too early, all specifications do is tie down the best minds working on the language for years, essentially stalling all development.

5 Likes

On the other hand, Julia disproving these is impressive:
Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C
Compiled languages will never be “extensible”

9 Likes

That Google works so hard to show everyone what they want to see might put everyone in a bubble and lead to the collapse of civilization, but on the other hand I actually don’t have much trouble finding results about Julia the language.

3 Likes