I've spent the last month and a half writing a five-part article series, The World's Most Maintainable Programming Language. Of course, as I posted it and started to get feedback, the final installment grew until it was a six part series.
I published the last part today. Then I pulled yesterday's old page off of my page-a-day LOTR calendar. Oops.
I haven’t read the final installments yet, but the previous ones seem to run contrary to most of the things you’d said about programming language design before…
You’ll have a hard time convincing me this wasn’t a really long April Fools’ joke.
Re:Are we to believe you?
chromatic on 2006-04-02T00:21:54
I suppose it really depends on what your definition of "maintainable" is.
Re:Are we to believe you?
n1vux on 2006-04-13T15:04:06
At least id didn't have ponies.
Re:404'd
bart on 2006-04-02T07:41:45
No it hasn't. But if you look at the first part of the series (link in journal), then you can see that part 2 has number 1, etc... so it's an off by one error. Part 5 is at http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2006/03/the_worlds_most_maintainable_p_4.h tml. The link in that article to part 5 is wrong.
Using the Eclipse IDE improves the Perl programming language by use of garbage collection, freeing programmers from manual memory management.
You need the Eclipse IDE for GC? Really? Dear me, and here I thought Perl had it's own Garbage Collection built into the langauge...
That minor point aside, I disgree with nearly every single point you made - that's some achievment
Anyway, who says progamming in the future will be text based? Your entire article assumes a text-files based system, yet who knows what we'll have in the future?
