[Novalug] I am thinking of a programming language - Can you name it?

[Paul D. Bain]

Bruce O. Benson wrote:

> I'm got going to have to switch languages for quite a while. 
> 
> I have a fast, terse, embeddable (scripting for compiled code), 
> extensible (domain-specific use) language that performs object 
> prototyping (although its OO system is not dictated), iterators, 
> recursive data types, a single data structure mechanism which is used to 
> implement all types, proper tail-call recursion, lexical scoping, 
> first-class higher-order functions, anonymous functions, reflection, and 
> corouting-based multitasking (multiple threads/multiple interpreters in 
> a single process).  These give it the power of Lisp and Scheme without 
> their syntax.  The syntax is about as easy as BASIC.

	[ snip, snip ]

> I think I've named many dynamic languages, except Tcl perhaps, whose 
> syntax (or the lack thereof) speaks for itself.  This language has a 
> cross-platform GUI widget library, arguably simpler than Tk. 
> 
> At the nexxt NovaLUG meeting, I will pass along an unused artifact 
> (official mousepad) from my days at Red Hat to the first person who 
> names this language.

	I have no clue as to the identity of this language, but I shall guess 
nevertheless: Objective C? Camel? Eiffel? Probably _not_ Ada or Modula 2.

	Honestly, no clue.

	A language's memory usage or speed in execution are no longer terribly 
important. DRAM is cheap and CPU speeds are continuing to increase apace 
(Moore's law). Basically, programmers look for tools that tend to 
maximize their productivity, are not too difficult or complex (which 
complexity killed C++, BTW), are fun to use, and tend to lend themselves 
to code re-use. I suspect that these are the reasons as to why your 
"mystery language" is not commonly used -- am I correct?

	Folks, programming languages compete with one another. If your favorite 
language ain't popular, then there is probably a reason for such 
unpopularity. It is not sufficient for a language to be superior in one 
or two respects, it must balance various considerations better than most 
other languages such that it becomes superior (to competing languages) 
in all _important_ respects. Otherwise, why use it?

	 If your favorite language ain't popular, then there is probably a 
reason for such unpopularity.

	Bjarne Sroustrup, the inventor of C++, still believes that C++ is 
vastly superior to all other programming languages, including Java, 
Python, and Ruby. I am not kidding. He will probably go to his grave 
holding this opinion. Why? Because he cannot understand that which I 
have written above. At some point, you need to gain some objectivity 
with respect to your favorite programming language and ask yourself, 
"Uh, how come ain't nobody using this thang? What the hail is the reason?"