These four languages form the basis of modern programming. You should know at least two of them by now.


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

These four languages form the basis of modern programming. You should know at least two of them by now.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the only thing lisp formed the basis of was other lisps. The other three (and algol) got a lot more integrated into a common theory. That's why there's no common lisp jobs

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      http://www.paulgraham.com/diff.html

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      every latte-sipping, dynamically typed, trendy scripting language that is created brings us closer to LISP. people just prefer syntax over macros.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I had to learn C because it's what college teaches us here.

      You know that js(the nagger tranny language) core features are based on Lisp, right?

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    C-chads won

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    had to learn some C and Lisp for my college class 🙂

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I had to learn C in college, and I'm an emacs user. Am I based, anons?

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I "learned" Objective-C, Common Lisp, Smalltalk, Clojure, and some other languages that pop up thanks to retards who think "scripting languages" should be a thing. I only use Clojure and Common Lisp nowadays, but of course I occasionally deal with retarded shit like python because Ansible and related tools exist, sadly.

    I don't really use C or Objective-C nowadays. I can read C code but I see no point when most of my projects are heavy bit twiddling and math, which can be done with much more convenience in Common Lisp for me. Picking up Fortran might be fun, but I also have zero motivation to do so.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I learned objective C
      Can you make iphone app without using xcode?

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's literally nothing to learn or know in C. It's a very small programming language. Dynamic memory allocation, pointers, learning how many bytes is what (char is 8). And even then that shit is different on every system. You could learn C in a day.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >learning how many bytes is what (char is 8).
      Clearly you should have spent more than a day learning C

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah it's 8 bits one byte im a retard

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >char has 8 bits
          Never assume anything regarding C
          https://begriffs.com/posts/2018-11-15-c-portability.html

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            He did say
            >And even then that shit is different on every system.
            See also https://faultlore.com/blah/c-isnt-a-language

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            He did say
            >And even then that shit is different on every system.
            See also https://faultlore.com/blah/c-isnt-a-language

            The way I like to say it is "if your language is portable, your code isn't." And I mean academically portable, so python, java et al don't count. Rust has the advantage of compiling to machine code but also having a defined, specked ABI. Of course it has a dump truck of other problems but whatever, everything is worse than just not using a computer

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >C is really easy
      >a char is eight bytes
      This kind of thing is what keeps me coming back here.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >(char is 8). And even then that shit is different on every system.
      char is always 1 byte on every system

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Scheme
    C
    JavaScript
    Chapter 4 query language of Abelson and Sussman

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    forth and smalltalk are pretty much irrelevant. forth moreso but even smalltalk wasn’t too influential as almost all of its arcane features haven’t been implemented in any popular languages. whereas with lisp the only things that haven’t are macros, homoiconicity, and s-expressions, but really that’s pretty much just one thing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      wasn't smalltalk the OOP lang?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        OOP existed before, but smalltalk is pretty much the purest form of OOP. But smalltalk does some very radical stuff that no popular OOP language today like javascript, java, or c++ does, and those languages would probably have developed similarly without smalltalk
        C (for its syntax and general ”structured” model) and lisp have completely changed the computing ecosystem, and pretty much every modern language today would be different without them.
        forth is completely irrelevant

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          > I don't what I am talking about: the post

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >trusting wikipedia over common sense
            if you've ever used smalltalk you'd know it's completely different from java, objective-c, python, etc. java is much closer to C than smalltalk, and hell even objective-c is much closer to C than smalltalk

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Smalltalk literally invented the term OOP, retard.

          Simula had record classes before, but they didn't call it "OOP".

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          C didn't invent nor popularized its structure. In fact BCPL is almost entirely a superset of C.
          The syntax comes from algol, the structure is even far older than that. Modern programming would only be different without C because C was pushed by corporate interests and caused a dark ages of computing from which we haven't yet recovered. Aside from that, plenty of other languages, especially older than C, had similar syntax and infinitely better features (including pascal, simula, algol, and their descendants such as B and BCPL, but even things like BLISS).
          Forth is still use in embedded to this day (double-digit %) and was the most popular embedded language up to the mid-2000's. It's also the basis of PS and PDF. Every performant language VM (e.g. java's) uses the stack machine model, inspired by forth (even though the concept was older).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Algol got it right the first time C updated it.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Algol got it wrong, but far less wrong than C did. C gutted it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Forth is still use in embedded to this day (double-digit %) and was the most popular embedded language up to the mid-2000's.
            [citation needed]

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              See ESC, 1991. Vol2 Page 790 Forth and Embedded Systems by Woehr.
              By 2002, it was reported that only about 2% of embedded devs used forth regularly according to Embedded.com. I had recalled this point was reached more around 2007 but oh well.
              Other interesting anecdotes:
              Forth was the first resident software on the new Intel 8086 chip in 1978, and MacFORTH was the first resident development system for the Macintosh 128K in 1984.
              Atari, Inc. used an elaborate animated demo written in Forth to showcase capabilities of the Atari 400 and 800 computers in department stores. Three home computer games from Electronic Arts, published in the 1980s, were written in Forth: Worms? (1983), Starflight (1986), and Lords of Conquest (1986).
              The following aircrafts used forth running natively on an RTX2010:
              Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE)
              NEAR/Shoemaker
              TIMED
              Rosetta's lander - Philae

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >double-digit %

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you're going to include C in that image, you should replace Smalltalk with C++ and Lisp with JavaScript.

          >C (for its syntax and general ”structured” model)
          Algol, Fortran, and PL/I are a lot more important than C. The only thing C did was popularize null-terminated strings.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The only thing C did was popularize null-terminated strings.
            Which was a horrible mistake, to the point even modern C programming guidelines require the use of string libraries that use double-pointers or length+pointer instead.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >modern C programming guidelines require the use of string libraries that use double-pointers or length+pointer instead
              Such as? Which guidelines and which libraries?

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sorry, I only know FORTRAN and it's enough for me.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Replace l*sp with LC
    Forth is utterly irrelevant and influenced nothing important. Replace it with Prolog.
    Replace Smalltalk with PLITS.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >seething anti-lisp fag refuses to acknowledge where literally everything good in programming came from

      >trusting wikipedia over common sense
      if you've ever used smalltalk you'd know it's completely different from java, objective-c, python, etc. java is much closer to C than smalltalk, and hell even objective-c is much closer to C than smalltalk

      >common sense
      unfortunately, history doesn't care about your personal opinion

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >everything good in programming came from
        I just said, lambda calculus.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Lambda Calculus is a model of computation, not a programming language, poser.

          By this logic, we should also include Turing machines.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Lambda Calculus is a model of computation, not a programming language, poser.
            Lisp is an implementation of it, not sure what you're on about.
            There is no Lisp without LC

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Anon...
              Is calculus also one of the most important programming languages because it influences all of them?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Don't make a bad strawman because you made a fool of yourself.
                Either directly refute my statements or stop responding.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lambda calculus just isn't a programming language.
                It's a theoretical model of computation.
                Yes, everything is built on something previous. Programming languages are built on theoretical models. Houses are built on foundations. Foundations aren't houses, and theoretical models aren't programming languages. You're trying to reverse inheritance.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Forth is utterly irrelevant and influenced nothing important.
      postscript and PDF as well as Open Firmare CLI.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Forth is utterly irrelevant and influenced nothing important.
      Bitcoin signing scripts literally use a restricted version of Forth.

      However, Prolog is indeed more deserving than Smalltalk, which was really just a rebranding of Lisp LOOPS.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Prolog is more deserving than C but nothing else. Prolog is used nowhere, its system was not new at inception and was easily added (even existed in some parts) in other languages, etc. It's more irrelevant than your mum's husband.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i am a retard. can someone tell me why elixir reminds me of smalltalk?

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is Forth worth learning? why?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      stack languages can be interesting.
      Especially if you like extremely minimal environments. As Forth was popular in the 80s for this.
      http://collapseos.org/
      Alternatively check out Factor, which is a more "batteries included" Forth/stack language.
      https://factorcode.org/

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's worth learning to understand a completely different model of computation (stack-oriented) which has many very interesting characteristics (forth parsing is downright trivial and requires no analysis at all, forth features mixed compile-interpret operations which enable a much stronger form of macros WITHOUT any special syntax, that is more akin to compile-time evaluation, stack operations are a pain but have several implications on syntax (non-)requirements which makes implementing a forth on a new platform trivial, etc.). It also has interesting aspects like being typeless (not dynamically typed -- all data is just "bytes"), which changes how you reason about writing your program.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I only know C

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >no APL

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      While I don't use them regularly, I'm pretty comfortable with C and LISP. I learned C through courses, and Scheme from the SICP lectures. The latter really elevated my programming abilities and changed how I did things in other languages. This was even after years of learning and personal + professional experience.

      I've always been curious about the other 2 though.

      Array oriented programmers intimidate me. They're the real wizards.
      Those languages, while concise, seem very write-only. I still wish I was on that level.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Array oriented programmers intimidate me. They're the real wizards.
        >Those languages, while concise, seem very write-only. I still wish I was on that level.
        https://beyondloom.com/blog/denial.html

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          APL is unreadable trash no matter how you spin it. It is responsible for starting the whole "hehe, what does this line do?" cancerous programming culture.

          Dijkstra was right to hate it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          APL is unreadable trash no matter how you spin it. It is responsible for starting the whole "hehe, what does this line do?" cancerous programming culture.

          Dijkstra was right to hate it.

          obligatory

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That seems hard to read but when you consider that the equivalent in another language would be hundreds of lines long it's not as ridiculous.
            APL programmers enjoy being able to see the entirety of the code they are working on at once without having to jump around in the source code, and they would claim it makes it easier to analyze the program as a whole for potential improvements/re-writes.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Direct APL descendants are pretty niche today, but APL influenced a surprising amount of languages including NumPy, Matlab, Mathematica, C++.
      And a lot of languages have features that were first introduced in APL without even realizing, things like accumulate/reduce and partial-sum/scan.
      Even the standard mathematical notation for floor and ceiling originated from APL.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I wanted to learn Smalltalk to have a good view of what OOP it's supposed to be (I think Smalltalk it's the language for that).

    Should I use GNU Smalltalk?

    I couldn't find the original compiler for Smalltalk 80, didn't search hard enough tho.

    What does LULZ think?

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wrong.
    I know and am comfortable working in "C" and assembler. The rest, is just bloat.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    FORTH LOVE IF HONK

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is there a language like Smalltalk but with an existing job market?
    I always liked Smalltalk and working in something that's similar would be comfy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, jobs suck.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    smalltalk died for good reasons, it was slow as balls (like twice as slow as however slow you think it was) and outside of GNU smalltalk it was all image based which has serious fundamental issues out of niches like relational databases
    if you want to learn what OO done well is like just learn ruby, aka smalltalk and perl's fun but autistic child

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      vw smalltalk was very fast. Modern smalltalks are slow as balls though, that's true. Like python-slow. What you call image-based is not hte problem. The problem is that it was tied to its IDE (which was basically an integral part of the language). The advantage is that you can modify the IDE (which is literally a part of your program) to suit your workflow needs (for example you're working on a game? You can add a model viewer *in the IDE* just using your own code AND ship this modified dev env PLUS code PLUS current program state to someone else for collab, how stupid cool is that?), but mostly disadvantages (can't easily file out without a special function, unclear application total state, you CAN break the image so that it fails to load, and due to the above you can't easily repair it, etc.). However one doesn't necessarily imply the other since you can use a file source for image-based development, plus appropriate tree-shaking facilities, as lisp allows.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >However one doesn't necessarily imply the other since you can use a file source for image-based development, plus appropriate tree-shaking facilities, as lisp allows.
        no shit, my point was that it was ALL image based from planning to prod, not just in your dev environment. lisp (aside from a tiny number of fully image-based implementations) found a nice middle ground which is why it managed to cling to life just long enough for clojure and the emacs ecosystem to revive it
        still though i will admit smalltalk is way more fun to futz with as a toy

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Clojure isn't Lisp.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is it then?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Java with more parentheses.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >outside of GNU smalltalk it was all image based
      This is the one glaring problem with Smalltalk and I'm amazed that so few people even mention it.

      One of the primary ways to manage software complexity, regardless of domain or technologies used, is code reuse. Most of the programs we write incorporate or interface with existing code, so that we don't have to write it again.

      The heavily image-oriented nature of Smalltalk makes this extremely impractical and sometimes not even possible. Each program becomes almost completely isolated from the rest.

      While Smalltalk is in some ways more elegant, Lisp got this aspect right: it is still somewhat image-based, but it does not suffer from this problem since it provides a standardized mechanism to load existing code at runtime, located somewhere else. While you can deploy an image, you can simply share libraries in source code form alone and let the implementation load them.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Being image-based wasn't much of a problem when the only image you would ever have was your operating system. The isolation is more a consequence of modern computers and operating systems using separate address spaces for every process and the single world approach being a bad fit for it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        > This is the one glaring problem with Smalltalk and I'm amazed that so few people even mention it.
        Because it's a retarded statement
        Image based development allow to modify instantiated live objects, and extremely iterative development. It's actually one of the best thing of smalltalk dev, you can query state of objects and do a lot of thing

        If you want to reuse code, just load the image

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Being image-based wasn't much of a problem when the only image you would ever have was your operating system. The isolation is more a consequence of modern computers and operating systems using separate address spaces for every process and the single world approach being a bad fit for it.

        Mezzano is like this. It's all image-based and booting just loads whatever you saved last.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          So were the lisp and smalltalk operating systems that ran on their respective symbolic hardware engineered to run their languages natively.
          Smalltalk machines notably introduced the GUI. Comb your mind for a bit for what the XEROX engineers meant when they told Steve Jobs that there was more to it than the mouse and the cursor.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Can mezzano even be installed on bare hardware ?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >no erlang
    Clearly written by a cs undergrad in mumbai

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Forth is giga chad, but idk if it forms the basis of modern programming. It's ahead of its time.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It's ahead of its time.
      It's just a stack machine, what the fuck is "ahead" of what?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        image-based, mixed compile-time and compilation+run-time, macro-less super-macros.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >image-based, mixed compile-time and compilation+run-time
          They are approximated in other languages like lisp and smalltalk
          > macro-less super-macros.
          I don't know about them but at a quick glance it's not extraordinary either

          The only "remarkable" thing is the iterative development, but it's not something other languages haven't already tried

          The only notable (and probably the solely) use case of forth is openfirmware as today

          The perception of being "ahead of its time" comes from the fact that it's not used and thus experienced its limitation in real world scenario, just like lisp machines and such

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >approximated
            No. Some languages like lisp and smalltalk have full image-based programming, it's not an approximation.
            Nothing else has the same kind of mixed compilation+runtime system that forth has, which is necessary for its ability to do macro-less macros.
            >it's not extraordinary either
            lol, lmao. By glance you clearly mean guess.
            Forth was used for plenty of huge projects and, just like lisp beyond its use for OSs, it repeatedly showed its benefits with few downsides. Importantly, forth is fully capable of low-level programming (moreover, on a level even C isn't capable of), while retaining features of such a high level implementing a full smalltalk system on top of forth is downright easy.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Cam you link to something you've made with Forth?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's proprietary so no. Ask my employer to release our code.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >forth,lisp ,smaltalk
    Simple well designed languages each nice in its own way
    > c
    random ad hock syntax ,retarded build process ,Everything as unintuitive and complex as it can be . Of course this is the language that gets picked as the one OS will work in and its retarded completely arbitrary syntax becomes a standard for new languages .

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I only know intermediate ActionScript 2.0 and some basic ActionScript 3.0, sorry chuds.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    emac

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *