Colin McMillen

Yes, I believe it is folly to try to build a "general purpose" language these days. It's just too much work to clear the bar for adoption (i.e. what do you offer that C/C++/Java/C#/Python/Ruby/JS don't). A language could be great in many ways, but as you say, you have to be able to solve problems you can't solve otherwise with it. It seems like most newer languages that see some adoption have a solid niche, like Erlang/Elixir, Julia, or Elm. A friendly reminder I posted over on reddit :) http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html

What is the advantage of this means of string escaping over strongly typed strings? If there is no implicit way to convert between a String and an XmlString or SqlString or what have you—or if an implicit conversion also correctly handles escaping—then the problem is moot. Look at Yesod, for instance, and how Persistent handles type-safe database access. For those who haven’t seen it, the Programming Language Checklist[1] is worth a read. Forgive me my cynicism, but I don’t see the point of Yet Another Block-Structured Imperative Language. It’s nice, and there’s nothing wrong with it, but nothing really sets it apart, and I for one value innovation more highly than remixing. [1] http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html

You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say "it is hard to make programming languages". It is a skill like any other that can be improved with sustained practice. My point is most of these conversations about the merits/demerits of languages are less than useless. Here's a programming language checklist http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html and another one about the history of programming languages http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-mostly-wron… This post was just a variation of the checklist which indicates to me the author is not really interested in any kind of deep analysis of the language and is just publicly bitching and moaning. That to me is an indicator of the blub disease.

Ithkuil seems like what a language should be: as the article said, it is both precise and concise. It looks the way Esperanto ought to have looked. I find Quijada's effort deeply impressive. I don't know much about designing human languages, but I know how hard it is to design a decent programming language (see http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html), and building a serious human language seems orders of magnitude more difficult. I've never seen an attempt that really intrigued me until I found Ithkuil.

Handy reference for those embarking on creating a new PL: http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html

"You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification": http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html

If you actually expect your language to be used (and not only write it because it is fun), you should probably also consider this checklist: http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html It isn't quite serious, but it can prepare you for a lot of the justified and unjustified dismissals you will have to face.

Seems to have been inspired by the Programming Language Checklist: http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html

http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html This has never been more relevant.

Related :) - http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html