Slashdot Mirror


The Most Important Obscure Languages?

Nerval's Lobster writes: If you're a programmer, you're knowledgeable about "big" languages such as Java and C++. But what about those little-known languages you only hear about occasionally? Which ones have an impact on the world that belies their obscurity? Erlang (used in high-performance, parallel systems) springs immediately to mind, as does R, which is relied upon my mathematicians and analysts to crunch all sorts of data. But surely there are a handful of others, used only by a subset of people, that nonetheless inform large and important platforms that lots of people rely upon... without realizing what they owe to a language that few have ever heard of.

429 comments

  1. I would hardly call R obscure. by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because a language was built for specialized uses doesn't mean it's obscure. R is very widely known and used. I haven't used Erlang, but I've heard of it, which means it probably isn't too obscure.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Wootery · · Score: 0

      I was thinking Scala sticks-out as being 'not really that obscure'. Would we call Python obscure? Ruby?

    2. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So what is and not obscure?
      ADA? It is used in all the latest Boeing airliners but not used a lot outside of the aerospace community.
      What about Lisp?
      Or Haskell?
      What about Comal, Action! and Promal? Now those are obscure.
      Pascal ,Modual, Oberon?
      Or the RPG family? REXX?
      Some are truly obscure or just not used anymore and some are very common in a specific domain. For instance I have never needed to use Lua but I know it is used in a lot of places.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I haven't used Erlang, but I've heard of it, which means it probably isn't too obscure.

      Read the summary. They are only discussing obscure languages that "spring to mind immediately".

    4. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one that sprung to my mind was ARLA. It's obscure enough to not have a Wikipedia page but it seems that RAPID is close enough.
      It's a quite important language and probably quite obscure among CS people. (And non-obscure among robot programmers.)

    5. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i had never heard of scala before the stuxnet/OLYMPICGAMES stuff. oh wait that's SCADA. wth is scala?

    6. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Pascal? I can remember when many, many Intro to CS courses were taught in Pascal. Including some I took. I still have the textbooks.

    7. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      A few I think are in the category of obscure languages that at least comes to my mind:

      • Logo
      • Lisp
      • Bliss
      • D
      • ML
      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    8. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by KatchooNJ · · Score: 2

      True... I had a Pascal class in high school... it used to be fairly common to teach with once upon.

      I still remember my teacher talking about a "Waloop" and I couldn't figure out what the heck that was. (I should note that I wasn't alone with this confusion in class.) Then it hit me that she was talking about a "WHILE LOOP"! D'oh! lol She had a wacky accent.

      --
      "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
    9. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't ADA used to be the only "official" programming language of the US Gov't?

    10. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Primate+Pete · · Score: 1

      For Department of Defense. And it's not 'ADA,' it's 'Ada,' from a mathematician's name, Ada Lovelace.

    11. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although Lisp and ML tend to be all over CS textbooks so I'm not sure how obscure that makes them..

    12. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Picolisp is kind of obscure but awesome if you've got the time to get into it. The most obscure language I know and have actually used in the past is probably Powermops, though. But it's not really obscure either, just another object-oriented Forth.

      Thinking about, I don't think I know any language that is more obscure than C++...

    13. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Only Bliss is obscure among these. The others are more or less mainstream.

    14. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, certainly R is not obscure, not today.

      I'd say APL is obscure today though it once was not. I'd say also that those that used it continue to have some impact on how newer stuff is used and designed.

    15. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Lua is used in the game industry as a light weight VM to interface with C/C++ code.

      e.g. One game dev job I worked at we had Lua running on the PS2 and Wii.

    16. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by neuroklinik · · Score: 1

      I'll definitely second APL. It's an amazing and elegant language that deserves to be more widely known and understood. It's the first language I remember encountering that uses unusual glyphs.

    17. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Zalgon+26+McGee · · Score: 1

      For those interested, the 6502 source code to Action! was recently released; there's an active thread on AtariAge dedicated to some bugfixes and continuing development.

      --

      ---

      Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman

    18. Re: I would hardly call R obscure. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Lua is also embedded to run atomic functions in redis. Very useful, but not sure why Lua was chosen there.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    19. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by rockmuelle · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of a Java "class" I took in the late 90s. The "instructor" kept talking about how great "jay vac" was and how it made Java run faster. Yeah, that was javac he was referring too ("java see"). Took all of us programmers half the day to figure that one out. I still call it jayvac when I want to mess with people.

      -Chris

    20. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can anything which springs to mind immediately really be obscure?

    21. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Wootery · · Score: 1

      JFGI. It's hardly an obscure programming language.

    22. Re: I would hardly call R obscure. by buckles · · Score: 1

      ADA keeps you safe. Obscurity is a subjective and possibly argumentative appelation.

    23. Re: I would hardly call R obscure. by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      RPG ILE, CL ILE business logic, C++ ILE for controllers, and a front end in Delphi that calls node.js ends on the 400. Yeap, we're slowly moving everything into a EGL / modern RPG backend and totally web frontend. Can't convert a 30 year old base overnight.

    24. Re: I would hardly call R obscure. by texas+neuron · · Score: 1

      I loved APL. Unless it got more popular after the early 80s, I think it was obscure. At Rice, it was used only by the Chemical Engineers which was about 7% of the student body.

    25. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      None of them are frequently used in commercial solutions.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    26. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      So what is and not obscure?

      Herrschaftsei kinnts es deppn ned a gscheide weidsprach ren wia jeda nuamaale mensch?

    27. Re: I would hardly call R obscure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also use it to write rules in nginx.

    28. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saupreißn, elende!

    29. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      I agree it's not obscure. However it's also very specialized. I think of it as a language to do statistics in. The thought of actually trying to program in it makes me shudder.

    30. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      I am currently looking at my Bliss Reference Manuel, publish date Nov. 9 1970, third revision. It's from the Computer Science department at Carnegie-Mellon. It has a red cover.

      BLISS was an "implementation language" for the PDP-10. This was in the days when systems software was written in assembly language, and there was a lot of skepticism that a high level language could be used for the job. BLISS was intended to show that it was possible. BLISS-10 knew about the assembly language of the PDP-10, and you could express individual instructions and directly refer to hardware registers and addressing modes.

      Different versions of BLISS existed for each different machine. There was BLISS-11 for the PDP-11 and BLISS-32 for the VAX. Some of the VMS system software was written in BLISS-32, and I think that this was also true for the PDP-11. The PDP-11 BLISS was cross compiled on a PDP-10.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    31. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by west · · Score: 1

      Well, I just learned that K, a successor language to J, which is a successor language to APL is alive and well and used on Wall Street.

    32. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by KatchooNJ · · Score: 1

      HA! :-) At least I wasn't alone with something goofy like that.

      --
      "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
    33. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by BVis · · Score: 1

      While you're correct that she was a mathematician, I think it might be more relevant that she is considered by many to be the first computer programmer.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    34. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank You,
      I am tired of people using ADA. I was in an interview while in college and the recruiter for the defense contractor wanted to know if I knew A - D - A. I thought for a minute and realized that he was talking about Ada, and I corrected him. Needless to say, I didn't get a second interview. Sometimes it's better to let somethings slide.

    35. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Never used Action! as I was a Commodore 64 guy but it looked interesting. Maybe we can see a C64 or C128 port of it now.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    36. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I like pseudocode, my favorite language. I wish more people used it, very useful.

    37. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      So what is and not obscure?
      ADA? It is used in all the latest Boeing airliners but not used a lot outside of the aerospace community.
      What about Lisp?
      Or Haskell?
      What about Comal, Action! and Promal? Now those are obscure.
      Pascal ,Modual, Oberon?
      Or the RPG family? REXX?
      Some are truly obscure or just not used anymore and some are very common in a specific domain. For instance I have never needed to use Lua but I know it is used in a lot of places.

      I love APL I could beat the best of the best who choose other languages by 20 to 1 in delivery days.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    38. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      D was the language I worked with my entire career.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    39. Re:I would hardly call R obscure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It lives on as Delphi

  2. Intercal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://catb.org/esr/intercal/

    It speaks for itself...

    1. Re:Intercal by ngc5194 · · Score: 1

      ... just not very clearly.

    2. Re:Intercal by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Comment rejected: insufficiently polite.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    3. Re:Intercal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This should be marked as informative not funny imo. The funny is a bonus. I would trust any programmer that can write solid code in this language.

  3. Haskell? by Wootery · · Score: 3, Informative

    I might go with a more exotic language, like Haskell or Mercury. D and Scala aren't as big as C++, but they're not conceptually that different. (That's not to say they're not worthwhile, mind.) Languages like Haskell, Mercury, Prolog, Erlang, are rather more alien.

    I guess my real point is that most important isn't terribly precise.

    1. Re: Haskell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How about FORTH? It's the stack fantastic!

    2. Re:Haskell? by sdxxx · · Score: 2

      I definitely agree. Once you've learned Haskell, it helps you understand a lot of design decisions in other pograming languages. So well worth it even if you don't end up writing tons of production Haskell code.

    3. Re:Haskell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APL2

    4. Re: Haskell? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Forth is good because it gives you a completely different way of looking at programming. Instead of writing a program, you are extending the compiler.
      Alan Perlis said, "A programming language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming isn't worth knowing." Forth is worth knowing by that metric.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Haskell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So many times this. The importance of such "academic" programming language is so easily underestimated.

      Java's garbage collection was revolutionary when it was introduced into modern programming languages (I'm forgetting about BASIC here). Indeed, early designs of Java were just C++ with GC (for better or worse). But garbage collection, before it was introduced in any "useful" language, was an academic concept.

      And similarly, the functional programming that has been going around academic languages such as the one listed by OP for decades. It is only now that we see elements of FP pop up in more popular languages such as Python (lambda expressions are borrowed straight from FP), F#, Scala, Rust (whose type system was heavily influenced by Haskell, as well as its coding style), and the list goes on and on.

      Academic languages matter, because - as much as you love or hate modern languages - the languages that we'll use tomorrow are influenced by these ones today.

    6. Re:Haskell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lisp had pretty powerful garbage collection long before Java and has been used (and is still used) in many large production quality systems.

    7. Re: Haskell? by proonwizard · · Score: 1

      Used it last week to save time soliving a problem interactively which pointed out a better data structure. Icon, a function langauge hellped me fill in some gaps in a broken C compiler. Whimsical was a great embedded language in ancient 8 bit times.

    8. Re:Haskell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem I have with Haskell is that it's incredibly slow unless you take great care in how you write out your algorithm (like any language I guess).
      But rewriting for speed kind of seems to defeat the purpose, since your code is no longer clear and descriptive.
      Maybe I've just never read the right Haskell book.

    9. Re:Haskell? by owski · · Score: 2

      Java's garbage collection was revolutionary when it was introduced into modern programming languages (I'm forgetting about BASIC here).

      It was revolutionary in LISP in 1959. A tad be earlier than Java, my friend.

    10. Re: Haskell? by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      Is there a way I can learn about Whimsical? I can't find any references online.

    11. Re:Haskell? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      A common complaint about Haskell. I don't think it should be promoted as nearly as fast as C, as this can get people's hopes too high.

      The reasons Haskell is worth learning aren't performance-related.

    12. Re:Haskell? by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      Once you've learned Haskell, it helps you understand a lot of design decisions in other pograming languages.

      Sounds interesting. I look forward to learning Haskell and writing pograms in it!

    13. Re:Haskell? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      The GP is kind of correct in that Java was the first GC'd language which the open source world took seriously. (Before you ask, no, nobody took Guile/ELisp seriously.)

      It also broke the logjam. Before Java, almost all open source was in C. After Java, open source was wide open.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    14. Re:Haskell? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I would say Prolog and Haskell don't count as "obscure". Everyone has heard of them, even if few people use them regularly.

      With you on Mercury, though. Certainly obscure, and worth knowing for the way it will change your thinking. (Disclaimer: I wrote some of the Mercury compiler.)

      My "learn one language a year" last year was Coq. I think that's suitably obscure and also quite important.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    15. Re: Haskell? by swell · · Score: 1

      "How about FORTH? It's the stack fantastic!"

      That's right- simple, elegant, efficient and an RPN mind bender.

      Or, consider Hypercard/Hypertalk- bulky, clumsy, inelegant; but loved by millions long ago.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
    16. Re: Haskell? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Good point. Forth is definitely among the useful obscure languages. It is used as a shell for EFI, so it's preinstalled almost everywhere even if you don't have an operating system installed yet!

    17. Re: Haskell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wunderbar, mein fuhrer!

    18. Re: Haskell? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Forth was great for writing hardware control code on primitive micro-processors. I think a fairly powerful implementation could be done in about 600 bytes and then could provide a passably friendly "language" for things like telescope control.

    19. Re:Haskell? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Was going to state the same. A lot of commonly used languages sported GC way before Java made it trendy.

    20. Re: Haskell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forth is worth knowing due to this book cover alone: https://www.flickr.com/photos/joeljohnson/1396636973

    21. Re: Haskell? by psyclone · · Score: 1

      I forgot about Icon, that was fun.

    22. Re:Haskell? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Funny that you mention that with Perl on your sig. It has offered reference-based garbage collection for decades now.

    23. Re:Haskell? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Perl 5 (the first version with references and objects) - October 1994
      Java 1.02 (first stable release) - January 1996

      We're talking about a little over a year here.

      Perl 5 was certainly responsible for the growth of CPAN (and CGI scripts!), it didn't take over C in the open source world. Before Java, pretty much everything was written in C, including Perl. After Java, the field was wide open.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  4. S.H.O.E. by gurps_npc · · Score: 0
    Spouse Home Orders Exclusively

    Note, despite the acronym, this fictional language works just as well on men as it does on women.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:S.H.O.E. by aitikin · · Score: 1

      Spouse Home Orders Exclusively

      Note, despite the acronym, this fictional language works just as well on men as it does on women.

      What part of the acronym implies it works better on women?

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    2. Re:S.H.O.E. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I would have guessed the opposite. Women don't even need SHOEs in the kitchen.

    3. Re:S.H.O.E. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ho, obviously.

  5. The one true language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Assembly. Which is more of a family of languages than a single language, but that's not too uncommon in the PL world.

    Very few people actually program in it anymore, but key bits of most OS kernels and programming language runtimes are still written in it.

    1. Re:The one true language by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I wanted to take Assembly Language when I went back to school to learn computer programming. I was the only student who showed up at the first class. Needless to say, the class was 20 students short of being funded by the state. So it got cancelled. Never got around to learning it on my own.

    2. Re:The one true language by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's sad. Assembler was a required course for my CS degree. If you wanted to mix in any significant computer engineering you took the optional second course that covered Motorola assembler as well.

    3. Re:The one true language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Until you can at least READ assembly, you have no idea what a computer actually does. I had a class on 'C' during my foray through a master's degree wherein one of the assignments was to stop the compiler at the 'a.out' phase, and optimize the assembly. Fortunately for me Z-80 assembler was the 2nd language I taught myself, right after BASIC. IBM and Intel assembler was an actual class I took, but it was also the only class I got a 'B' in since I was used to working with processors that didn't even have a MUL instruction, so I tended to do things outside of the "IBM way".
      Hiding the assembly through the use of a compiler has it's obvious advantages, and I don't recommend writing production code in assembly. However you are fooling yourself if you believe it has no relevance. Furthermore the more layers of abstraction that are added particularly through the use of point-and-click IDE's, the worse is the code that is generated, and the less capable is the developer you have on your staff. As with anything in life there are trade-offs. Using Ruby-on-rails or Drupal might get your project up and running faster and may even help the poor sucker that has to maintain the application, but your will not end up with optimal code. It will require beefier and beefier hardware to run, and when something goes wrong with a library interaction you couldn't anticipate you will have no idea where to look. Case in point - anything you've used recently. Thus the term 'bloatware'.

    4. Re: The one true language by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      +1 for this. I sometimes need to squeeze extreme performance out of low end chipsets, and assembly routines are frequently the answer.

    5. Re:The one true language by CodeArtisan · · Score: 2

      That's sad. Assembler was a required course for my CS degree. If you wanted to mix in any significant computer engineering you took the optional second course that covered Motorola assembler as well.

      Same for me. Motorola 6800 and 6809 assembler for the low level and Pascal for the data structures courses. Once we had a strong grounding in both, they let us loose on C. It was a great combination.

    6. Re:The one true language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You've never implemented an interpreter?

      On multiple occasions has a tiny virtual machine made the most sense. For example, I implemented a non-blocking SPF resolver by translating the SPF policies to a simple byte code with primitive instructions for DNS querying. It's still the only full-featured, C-based asynchronous SPF resolver. The complexity of all the conditional callbacks for asynchronous I/O were the death-knell for other resolvers.

      I could have done it without the virtual machine, but this was the first time I had implemented SPF. There was too much risk I would need to refactor large amounts of code if my original strategy failed. I had a tried of abortive attempts using continuation-passing style, which I've often used elsewhere. But SPF is highly recursive, which complicates an asynchronous C-based implementation. Using a tiny, specialized virtual machine meant that any refactoring of logic would be confined to the code generator. On balance, the virtual machine approach proved cleaner.

      Anther time I wrote a virtual machine was for a tiny hexdump implementation. BSD hexdump consumes a rather sophisticated format string, which makes it extremely powerful for arbitrary, complex data dumping formatting. Just for kicks(e.g. mostly for my personal edification) I decided to implement a version by directly translating (no intermediate AST) the format string to a simple byte code for a tiny virtual machine. Despite being written in portable ISO C, it ended up being many time faster than the original, "obvious" implementation. It's even times faster than the GNU od emulation of `hexdump -C`, which literally hard codes the output formatting logic.

      Heck, just look at the printf-syntax. Notwithstanding the lack of type-safety, it's a very elegant approach to output formatting, adopted in some form by the majority of modern languages. It's basically a very limited interpreter. Implementations effectively must include a tokenizer, parser, and state machine. Even if you don't program in C, not having the experience of implementing virtual machines (or, minimally, any kind of explicit state machine) is a serious knowledge deficit. Sometimes such approaches are hands-down the based solution.

      FWIW, I don't have a comp.sci degree at all. But once I learned C, I quickly realized that I had to learn how to implement low-level data structures and algorithms myself (not because there weren't libraries I could use, but because they were often inadequate, for various reasons). Once I learned that skill, I quickly realized that _generic_ data structures are often poorly suited to the situation at hand. Stringing together cookie-cutter list, tree, and hash data structures is rarely the best approach to complex or performance-sensitive solutions. Which is why I disagree that, e.g., C++'s STL makes it preferable over C. If the STL is sufficient for your needs, it usually means that a higher-level language (Lua, Python, C#, etc) is probably also sufficient, in which case C++ (or C) is nothing but a burden. First class functions, lexical closures, and guaranteed tails calls are worth so much more than anything the STL offers, and often more than even templates.

      Seriously, teach yourself these low-level, supposedly useless subjects, and you'll open up a whole new world of methods which can improve your code all around, no matter your language of preference. You're not reinventing the wheel with these approaches. It's not like there's a _single_ kind of wheel used everywhere in the world. Knowing when to "re-invent" the wheel and when not to is something only experience can teach you. Categorically never re-inventing the wheel is the worst advice of all.

    7. Re:The one true language by chipschap · · Score: 1

      Babylonian Aramaic. Way easier than Palestinian Aramaic.

    8. Re:The one true language by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Until you can at least READ assembly, you have no idea what a computer actually does.

      considering the depth of complexity of today's computers, no single person has any clue about what is actually happening

      get a grip and accept reality as it is

    9. Re:The one true language by chipschap · · Score: 2

      You make a good point about assembly language. I cut my teeth, so to speak, on IBM 1620 assembly way back when, and that type of learning very early on in my career was really a good thing in terms of learning how computers work --- something that hasn't changed in its fundamentals.

    10. Re:The one true language by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I went to a community college and learned every flavor of Java because it didn't require an expensive site license. My current day-to-day language is Python. I occasionally dabble with compiling Python code to C code with Cython and some C programming. Back in the day, I did some 6502 assembly language on the Commodore 64.

    11. Re: The one true language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily the world lives on an abundance of hardware power, in particular for the kind of applications that benefit from ruby on rails, so no issue there. I support advocating the knowledge of assembler level programming as a means to gain insight, but I oppose the view you get less efficient code from high level languages. Efficiency is not only based on compute cost, speed in delivery very often if not always trumps code efficiency, at least in a first step. No point to optimize for compute efficiency if your product is not going to be used.

    12. Re: The one true language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, but there are caveats.

      I learned both MIPS and TI C6-X assembly in college, but I never actually programmed a real chip to do anything... it was all simulators and stuff, so I don't even know how to convert a text program in MIPS assembly into a binary that will run on SunOS (what we had available there). The nice part about the sims were that you could run them on Linux, Mac, Windows so you didn't have to remote into a machine just to test your code.

      Anyhow, MIPS assembly can be understood by any child who can read and count on their fingers. It's a beautiful language, but with just the primitives (load, store, add, jump, etc.) you can't write a program that can do anything besides computation. Same thing with the DSP programs we wrote: beautiful, pipelined, but relatively simple computators. Nothing that did anything cool, because once you want to, say, print text to the screen, draw graphics, etc. the whole world goes to hell and you're mostly coding against APIs that really have nothing to do with the language itself. You're learning the API instead of the language, so they never bother with that stuff.

      Now, if you've ever tried to learn x86 assembly, your mind will turn inside out. At least it did for me when I tried to do it. MIPS had flat-looking memory and a large number of registers while x86 had fucked-up segmented memory access and was stack-based with a very small number of registers. I found it very difficult and never did much with it other than suuuper basic stuff. When I see disassemblies of code in x86 I struggle to get my bearings. I can't even tell when a function call is happening versus a pointer being de-referenced. Maybe it's my own problem but x86 is a giant mess that I'd never wish on anyone.

      But I think that any programmer who wants to be very good should at least dabble a bit - for a short time - in /some kind/ of assembly. I see some programmers write a single line of code in some high-level language and don't understand that what they writing will compile-down to thousands or more individual instructions. They aren't /frugal/ win computing resources eps because they really aren't aware of them.

      Just like some programmers who have only ever used a language like Perl, Java, or C# have no concept of the amount of memory they can use by writing inefficient code. If you saw all that same code in C it would be a nightmare, and you'd know it was a nightmare because the code would be so awful. In those higher-level languages, it's easy to write shitty code without realizing it. If you don't know what's going on down underneath, you are going to write garbage at the top level.

    13. Re:The one true language by Garfong · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find being able to read assembly incredibly useful when debugging optimized C/C++ code. In my experience it's not infrequent for a debugger to not be able to find the value of a variable in memory, even on lines where the variable is being passed into a (non-inline) function.

      And debugging optimized code is required a fair amount when fixing performance & reliability issues (when the problem may disappear on non-optimized code), and embedded (where the program may not fit on the device without optimization).

    14. Re:The one true language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to a library, find a book on it and start raeading. I did it in 10th grade and learned 6502 in 2 weeks. Why do you need a class? Can you read and understand?

    15. Re:The one true language by Boronx · · Score: 1

      I used to think the same as you, but then I learned assembly.

    16. Re:The one true language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly it wasn't required for my course either. Luckily I already knew z80 very well and picked up x86 later for fun. When you know assembly things that are obscure in programming suddenly make perfect sense, even if you don't know the precise details of the implementation,

    17. Re:The one true language by BVis · · Score: 1

      Some (probably most) people learn better in a group, where you can ask questions of your classmates and your instructor.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    18. Re:The one true language by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You waited until the 10th grade to learn 6502 assembly language? I was learning that in the eighth grade on my Commodore 64. :P

    19. Re:The one true language by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I went back to school to learn computer programming. My community college couldn't afford the site license for Microsoft Visual Studio, so the core programming classes taught every flavor of Java. These days I'm teaching myself Python and C at home, and PowerShell scripting at work.

  6. My answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brainfuck. Hilarity ensured.

    1. Re:My answer by plopez · · Score: 1

      and on the other end of the spectrum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Surely the best joke in Computer Science *ever*.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  7. Haskell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly one of the most elegant languages created, even if it isn't popular.

  8. VBA by alexhs · · Score: 5, Funny

    Visual Basic for Applications seems to be a pretty important language on the dark side of the Force.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:VBA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Microsoft stack developer and I hate VB in all of its forms. Only VB.Net is even tolerable, and then only because it's trivial to convert it to C#.

      VBA is an abomination. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something that was already obsolete 15 years ago.

    2. Re:VBA by darkain · · Score: 1

      Had a client insist on using Excel for data entry into a database... wrote an entire fucking SQL front end using VBA in Excel, which in itself was tricky since Excel's SQL access is "supposed" to be read-only (just SELECT statements). Discovered an exploit in Excel 2003 (maybe earlier now? I can't remember) that allowed for INSERT and UPDATE statements to process through as well. The exploit still worked in Excel 2007 when we switched everything over to XSLX files which could be directly processed by the server so no more need for hackish bullshit. (tho, if it were MY choice, we're fuckin ditch Excel a decade ago for what we're doing)

  9. Intermediate languages by Jamu · · Score: 1

    The intermediate languages like GENERIC/GIMPLE.

    --
    Who ordered that?
    1. Re:Intermediate languages by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      The intermediate languages like GENERIC/GIMPLE.
      --
      Who ordered that?

      Appropriate sig!

      If you're going to learn one of those, LLVM is a better long-term bet.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  10. 3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hipster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have come to learn that all languages can be placed in one of those three categories.

    If you believe the language you use just HAD to be built because it has some REALLY GREAT features which make it SO MUCH BETTER than the alternatives and are just ESSENTIAL for productive programming in today's HIGH-PACED environment, and its detractors just DON'T UNDERSTAND, you have a hipster language.

    If you are doing a fairly specific job with a carefully developed (and often expensive, though sometimes completely Free) tool that has been around for ages and had a language develop with it, perhaps not even because anyone thought a new language was needed but because it was simply thought to be way more of a hassle to bolt libraries onto an existing language, you have a specialist language. Occasionally someone can get as defensive about a specialist language as they get about a hipster language - for example, I am rather partial to Mathematica's pattern-matcher, and sometimes let my enjoyment of it get the better of myself - but these sort of defenses omit a desire to have the WHOLE WORLD use the language.

    If the language just evolved over time and well it's far from perfect but it'll do nicely for a lot of things, you have a general-purpose language.

  11. BF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I rather like BF. It's a very compact language with 8 instructions total, so it's usefulness to implement useful software is pretty limited. By pretty limited I mean 0. However, the language itself, being 8 instructions and some implied state, is pretty trivial to implement. It is also Turning complete. So it ends up being a great mechanism to prove another language is Turning complete by implementing a BF interpreter with it. So no one wants to actually use it, there is a small number of people who know about it, and it is very utilitarian in a meta context. Best obscure language.

    1. Re:BF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BF is just P'' with input and output instructions added. There is no need to implement BF to demonstrate Turing completeness when you can implement the slightly smaller P'', which is a bit closer to a Turing machine.

  12. Does Ada count as 'little known'? by david.emery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most contemporary aircraft have significant amounts of flight-critical software in Ada, some train control systems use Ada, some air traffic control systems use Ada, and of course there's a lot of Ada in US (and other country's) weapon systems. There's the SPARK subset that has been used for provably correct systems (does your software vendor provide a no-bugs warranty?). And there's production-quality code available under Open Source. http://www.adacore.com/ (no connection with AdaCore, other than I have lots of friends who work there.) All of my production code after 1980 was written in Ada. There's substantial anecdotal/unpublished evidence that shows large Ada systems have substantially lower life-cycle/software maintenance costs. Your Mileage May Vary, of course.

    1. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by mrun4982 · · Score: 2

      Ada was the first thing that came to mind when I saw this article. I'd say it counts as lots of people outside of the aviation world have never even heard of it.

    2. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SPARK is something worth investigating for embedded developers that want code with fewer bugs in it. This article talks about a project that rewrote a small quadcopter's control system in SPARK, "Ada/SPARK Fixes Crazyflie Nano Quadrotor" (http://electronicdesign.com/dev-tools/adaspark-fixes-crazyflie-nano-quadrotor-0).

    3. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Ada and the PRG family jumped to my mind first. Do those count?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      If they're computer science graduates and have not heard of Ada, then they're merely 9 to 5 programmers with no interest in their chosen profession. If they're on Slashdot and have never heard of Ada then they need to turn in their ID number so that someone else can use it.

    5. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would say that since the FAA dropped the Ada mandate near on 20 years ago, there are few to no new projects being developed in Ada. As a former Ada programmer who has worked on avionics systems, the only jobs I see out there are for maintenance and upgrading of legacy software. Every new avionics project I've seen is done in C or in some cases, C++, depending on whether or not they went to the trouble of getting C++ accepted by risk-averse project management.

      I've spent a career in the safety critical world, both in military and defense. Coincidentally, I did a short stint in train control as well. I haven't written a line of Ada code since 1998 and it's becoming increasingly rare to see any project still written in Ada. I have not even heard of any train control systems being written in Ada (though that doesn't mean there aren't). All of the new Positive Train Control upgrades being added to train systems are all written in C/C++. That much I can say for certain.

      While Ada has some useful features, I found it was more than a bit tedious and cumbersome to use day to day. And while the development environment is solid and bug free, it doesn't get around the fact that bad programmers write bad code in any language. Sure, Ada puts road blocks in front of you but bad programmers are adept at getting around them with surprising frequency. That's not to say bad programmers writing bad code is exclusive to Ada. Bad programmers write bad code in any language. But the whole notion that a language can "prevent" bugs is ludicrous. The best it does is to "help you avoid" bugs. But adherence to a quality coding standard, along with competent people performing code reviews will do that for you no matter what language you use.

      In this day and age, Ada certainly qualifies as "little known" because it is a dying language that most young people are never exposed to. It is slowly being displaced by more ubiquitous languages. Sure, there are some passionate adherents who will keep it alive for decades to come. But it will linger on only in a few niche environments, slowly fading into history.

    6. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      I've spent a career in the safety critical world, both in military and defense.

      That should be "civilian and defense"...

    7. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      MUMPS as a language probably deserves attention in that same vein, because it's used in a lot of different (old) medical systems. If you haven't seen it, here's an example of what it looks like.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C++ is non-deterministic and I'm not interested in flying anything with it. C can be done well, but holy shit do Grumman programmers sneak a lot of bad C++ into what's supposed to be aerospace grade code. So far our "we will not pay you for unvalidated code" approach has worked well; the only catastrophic bug that has made it through is triggered on the convergence of a certain dataset and a cosmic ray upset (we think ... can't prove it was actually a bit upset in a register but we're pretty confident.)

      That being said TCL/Tk has got to be the winner.

    9. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      Only parts of C++ are non-deterministic. You can write deterministic code in C++ if you limit yourself to a subset of the language.

      Thing is, pretty much every language has non-deterministic features. Even Ada. Every language that allows dynamic memory allocation off the heap has the potential for non-deterministic behavior.

    10. Re: Does Ada count as 'little known'? by ianb1469 · · Score: 1

      There are new Ada projects, not just legacy updates. Many UK and US civil and defence projects use Ada, and various companies like Rapita Systems use Ada for their desktop applications. I wish more companies wounde would use it, but many play the "can't recruit" card, which is just a poor excuse.

    11. Re: Does Ada count as 'little known'? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      It's not a poor excuse. It's a valid reason. Everyone of the engineers I worked on Ada projects with in the past won't touch Ada projects now unless they were desperate for work. We just find it so unpleasant to work on. Sorry but you, as a fan of Ada, are in a very small minority.

    12. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue isn't whether you can write a deterministic algorithm in a language. The issue is whether the language provides constructs that permit a verifier to prove that the behavior is correct. C++ lacks some of the necessary constructs and semantics. Some of these deficiencies can be worked around, but not all of them (e.g. related to multi-threading). See, e.g., this SPARK C++ paper: http://www.eschertech.com/papers/CanCPlusPlusBeMadeAsSafeAsSpark.pdf

      Of course, we both know that the real reason C and C++ has become more common in safety-critical systems is because C and C++ programmers are cheaper. But programmers who are not proficient in multiple languages are hardly the ones I'd want designing and implementing such software. All the very best programmers I've known move seemingly effortlessly from language to language. They of course have their preferences, but with enough experience all languages begin to feel the same, especially languages as similar as C++ and Ada.

      So C and C++ are more popular not because they're better suited, but because they can tap a pool of less experienced engineers.

    13. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brutal, but true - I like it!

    14. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      All programming languages are deterministic!

      If you think a certain part of C++ is not: I'm eager to se your examples!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      So you can predict how long a push_back() call on a vector will take every time you call it?

    16. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by VoiceOfSanity · · Score: 1

      Ada was still fairly heavily used at the site I worked at back between 2002 and 2010. The site was a support and maintenance facility for USAF aircraft, and those systems still all ran Ada as their primary command and control language. It wouldn't be unusual for a bug to be reported while an aircraft was out in the field, our programmers come in at 2am in the morning, and have a fix written, tested and ready to be deployed by 10am (we had a mandatory response time of less than 24 hours). And our Ada programmers were some of the sharpest folks you'd ever meet.

      Just because the use of Ada has been depreciated in other areas doesn't mean it's totally dead as a language. It's quite alive in the AC-130s, where it's proven its usefulness over the years especially in the area of targeting and firing those 105mm cannons out the side of the aircraft.

    17. Re: Does Ada count as 'little known'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ada's enumerations are wonderful. I don't know how that hasn't been adopted by the C++ world. Create an enumeration and it's then trivial to have an array over those values (with bounds checking) or loop over those values. You can also get easy access to the string name of the enumeration.

    18. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by DZign · · Score: 1

      if I remember correct the library system at the university 15 years ago also ran on mumps..

      And maybe not important (except for the company where I work) but definitely obscure : has anyone heard before of sydaid ?
      That's what still is running on our operational systems (hp-ux), it's about 30 to 40 year old code..
      I always wondered if it's used somewhere else in the world too..

    19. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All programming languages are deterministic!

      That's false in any sense of the word. But you may also confuse two different uses of it.

      If you think a certain part of C++ is not: I'm eager to se your examples!

      By 'deterministic' in this case people mean certain repeatable performance guarantees (relative to given operating system limitations). It is usually taken to imply no dynamic memory allocation and performance is often evaluated on the basis of specific hardware running a realtime operating system.

      The other use of the word concerns control flow, and there are of course languages with nondeterministic control flow. Many declarative languages are nondeterministic, for example.

    20. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      So you can predict how long a push_back() call on a vector will take every time you call it?

      As well or better than I can predict how long a malloc() call is going to take in C.

      Btw, STL is the standard library of C++, not the language. You can use the language without using the standard library.

    21. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by Drethon · · Score: 1

      I've worked on new projects using Ada code as recently as 2013. I've moved off the embedded software at the moment but I'm pretty sure it is still active in new avionics projects.

    22. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MUMPS - I was hoping someone would mention it!! Wow that takes me back, we had a look at that at College back in 1992 as our programming teacher used to use it. Happy Days.

    23. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'd never heard of it, but it looks like it's in use, and based on the way they brag that it's a "4th generation language," it must have been invented in the early 80s.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by geo3rge · · Score: 1

      The company I used to work for (a large clinical lab) uses MUMPS. It is a horrible language. They need to dump it and move on to something more modern. They could get rid of 90% of their programmers, and have a system that did not need to be rebooted daily. However, the IT power structure gets its power by managing the (endless) queue, and they refuse to hire competent coders.

      My project (started in the 1990s) was c-based, and it is still in use, despite the fact that I no longer work for them. Needless to say, I did not work for IT.

      Fortunately, the business model for large clinical labs is obsolete, so it is just a matter of time before some agile competitor, using modern tools and paradigms cleans their clock.

    25. Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If you mean with "predictable" timing constraints then write so.
      You seemed to believe that some languages are more deterministic than others.
      Regarding to your question: I would need or know what vector you are talking about and either see its source code or the documentation.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  13. COBOL by hooiberg · · Score: 1

    Learn COBOL? Job security 100%.

    But it is nothing like all the 'modern' languages because it has hardly evolved. As a modern day well educated programmer, you will still need to make a few mind leaps to become a COBOL programmer, and as such it counts as obscure.

    However, many banks still handle their transactions on mainframes with COBOL.

    1. Re:COBOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      COBOL was the only language that I could come up with either, that is both "Important" and "Obscure". I would not be surprised if every credit-card transaction is touched by by some COBOL along the way (hence important). And it is definitely obscure since nobody teaches the language in school, and no new projects are written in COBOL.

    2. Re:COBOL by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I took a semester long COBOL class in college. I remember very little of it other than having to book time on a specific IBM machine to do the assignments. Good times.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    3. Re:COBOL by KatchooNJ · · Score: 2

      I remember the COBOL guys got a lot of extra work when banks and other companies were preparing for Y2K. I think they had to import people from Russia, since there was a shortage of people in the U.S. who knew the language well enough.

      --
      "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
    4. Re:COBOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn COBOL? Job security 100%.

      Strange considering job postings always demand 20 years of COBOL in a mainframe environment using TN3270. Plus they must know Java and web application servers too. Naturally only Indians have the experience (cough) and only Indians can be trained evidently.

  14. Lua by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lua

    1. Re:Lua by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also "not-so-famously" used in many things you use every day and don't realize (I wish I could go in to more detail but NDA :/ ).

      Lua is by far one of the simplest designed languages there is and the group responsible for it is widely known for their ability to provide solid stable code. It's so easy to embed and interface with C code. It's a no-brainer to use it anywhere a fast lightweight scripting language makes sense. "Javascript" should have been Lua.

      Then you have things like LuaJIT. It's often able to produce faster mathematical code than I can do in hand-optimized C (no lie; some of my clients are using it to pound the areas they are working in).

      The only thing Lua doesn't do well is strings. If you have a lot of string processing to do then go Perl or C++. LuaJIT can do it with similar performance if care it taken to only use native strings but it's a bit of a pain.

    2. Re:Lua by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lua is also pretty big in the high-concurrency network service arena. I'd bet money that Lua powers more network application services than Erlang. You just don't hear about it that often because while Lua is _extremely_ elegant and powerful, it's just a refinement and perfection of the past 20+ years of dynamic language development. And it's embedded nature means that every project, at least superficially, seems like a one-off--it's not a "Lua project", it's a "project that uses Lua", with the "that uses Lua" part often left unstated. Whereas the most defining feature of a Python or Node.js project is that it uses Python or Node.js instead of C or C++. And because the Lua C API is so well designed, making C code extensions first class citizens, even down to closure and coroutine semantics, there aren't as many pure Lua projects; such projects are usually classified as C or C++, even if the vast majority of the code is implemented in Lua.

      Erlang has some useful fundamental characteristics (particularly immutability), but what makes it most famous (or perhaps infamous) is simply that its semantics and syntax are so different from the mainstream.

    3. Re:Lua by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Lua is not obscure.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    4. Re:Lua by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Adobe also uses it a lot. Their image processing engine code is written in C/C++/ASM but the UI code in Lua. As far as I understand most of Lightroom is written in Lua

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    5. Re:Lua by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      I don't get why Lua never became more popular than it did. It's Python after a marathon diet.

  15. Whitespace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost as good.

    1. Re:Whitespace by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      Whitespace FTFY

      *Love* whitespace, since a whitespace program and a C program can coexist in the same source file.

  16. Navajo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Navajo by KatchooNJ · · Score: 1

      And here's why.

      Hey... that's a different kind of coding. ;-)

      --
      "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
    2. Re:Navajo by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I prefer Qwghlmian.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  17. Scala by SumDog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A few years ago I started using Scala and have even worked at shops where I convinced them to let me use it on larger scale telecom projects. There are things in Scala that can be terse and weird, but it's more than just a clean version of Java. If you learn all the tricks, it's got a lot of syntactic sugar and functional syntax that lend itself to shorter more manageable code. I'm still using it for some pretty big projects like BigSense.io.

    Although it's not just Scala, Groovy and Clojure are both languages that try to leverage the existing JVM and the rich base of Java libraries with a newer language.

    Java was a big stepping stone during its time. It did a lot of things right, but the backwards comparability and keeping in horrible concepts (checked exceptions, no real properties, interfaces) has kept it from really growing as a language. I think the future of the JVM won't include as much Java.

    1. Re:Scala by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Checked Exceptions are not a "horrible concept".

      Try to do a majour project without them ... have fun!

      And what would you suggest as replacement for interfaces?

      Sure, Java lacks true mix ins and true multiple inheritance (and templates) ... but what has that to do with interfaces?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Scala by tigersha · · Score: 1

      The scary thing is that Gosling once said if there was one mistake that he made in Java it was to allow inheritance. He thinks interfaces would have been enough.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    3. Re:Scala by sfcat · · Score: 1

      A few years ago I started using Scala and have even worked at shops where I convinced them to let me use it on larger scale telecom projects. There are things in Scala that can be terse and weird, but it's more than just a clean version of Java. If you learn all the tricks, it's got a lot of syntactic sugar and functional syntax that lend itself to shorter more manageable code. I'm still using it for some pretty big projects like BigSense.io.

      Although it's not just Scala, Groovy and Clojure are both languages that try to leverage the existing JVM and the rich base of Java libraries with a newer language.

      Java was a big stepping stone during its time. It did a lot of things right, but the backwards comparability and keeping in horrible concepts (checked exceptions, no real properties, interfaces) has kept it from really growing as a language. I think the future of the JVM won't include as much Java.

      A clean version of Java? More like a write-once language. Back in the the 80s when it was C (procedural) and LISP (functional) were the main languages. LISP lost due to its tendency to produce non-maintainable code bases that multiple programmers had a hard time working on together. Have fun learning that lesson again. Once was enough for me...

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
  18. Tamil, I would say by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Because the superstar speaks it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  19. This one's easy by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    French.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:This one's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      French.

      It's only important if you want to visit Africa or Montreal, and what you'd be speaking in the latter is not really 'French' is it? Oh yeah, I suppose it might be useful in a couple small areas of Europe as well.

    2. Re:This one's easy by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      And if you go to New Brunswick, Canada's only bilingual province, it's a different type of French yet again.

    3. Re:This one's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the French database language Multilog.

      The "if...endif" construct was "si...is".

      It was very slow, as the interpreter was written in QuickBASIC (the "advantage" was that we could access Multilog's internal data structures from Q(uick)BASIC).

      I found it only being mentioned once on the internet here.

      Obscure: very.
      Important: nah, forget about it. I hope one day I will forget about it too.

    4. Re:This one's easy by godrik · · Score: 1

      Mais qu'est ce qu'il raconte? Le francais n'est pas obscure du tout!

    5. Re:This one's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it wasn't for the French the people in America would be speaking English.

    6. Re:This one's easy by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Oh, no, Aramaic is much, much more obscure.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:This one's easy by tigersha · · Score: 1

      True, I live 7 km from the French border in Germany and even here you seldomly hear it...

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    8. Re:This one's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only important if you want to visit Africa or Montreal, [...]

      Africa.

      Africa.

      You said Africa.

      Please don't say Africa. Africa is a continent. It is 50% larger than North America, it has more people than in all of the Americas, and there are more languages spoken there than in Europe. Even in the largest African country where French is the official language (DR Congo), less than 50 % actually know French.

    9. Re:This one's easy by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      And if you live 7 km from the German border in France, how often do you hear German?

    10. Re:This one's easy by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      You have this backwards. French is an unimportant well-known language, not an important obscure language.

    11. Re:This one's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still better off learning French/English than Swahili or whatever if you would travel around the whole continent. That would classify French as an 'important' language in that context.

    12. Re:This one's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      French.

      Lithuanian

  20. LISP by Ckwop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    LISP is probably the most powerful language every discovered. I say "discovered" here and not "created" deliberately. There is a quality about it that makes it feel more like an extension of mathematics rather than a language.

    It might have conquered the world if only Eich had been allowed to build Scheme in the browser, as he was hired to do.

    Instead, it languishes for some reason I can't really understand. I still wish for a day it becomes a mainstream language but I think it'll just remain a wish.

    1. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The syntax is too obscure for most mainstream programmers.

    2. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, putting parentheses around things and stringing them together in lists - absolutely overwhelming. Thank GOD we have things like Haskell. If you're lucky you can even get an editor to let you use fancy unicode operators.

    3. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying mathematics was discovered? * ducks *

    4. Re:LISP by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

      Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/224/

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    5. Re:LISP by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you're going to add Lisp, you should add Smalltalk, for similar reasons. It has a depth that make Java, C++, and such languages seem like object oriented parodies.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is a quality about it that makes it feel more like an extension of mathematics rather than a language."

      That's because it is an extension of formal mathematical concepts. LISP pioneered all the modern programming language structures, everything from loops to linked-lists to garbage collection. I've never written a line of LISP in my entire life, but the original paper is fascinating. It's titled "Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine". See, e.g., http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/recursive.pdf

      I ran across the reference in a blog post discussing mark & sweep garbage collection. LISP was, among many other things, the first language to implement automatic garbage collection. The paper discusses rather seemingly simple concepts using comparatively exhaustive logic, simply because nothing was taken for granted back then. You had to provide proofs of correctness for even the simplest of data structures. That explains much about the design of LISP, which provided very sophisticated structures and behaviors out-of-the-box, but in such a way that makes it relatively easy to reason about formally, at least regarding those aspects that were of concern at the time.

    7. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LISP is an awful language. That's why it languishes. It fails at a very simple, very basic level: the same level that HP calculators fail at: infix notation for math. No one wants to represent math as a stack operation. Syntax killed LISP. Thank god.

    8. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many languages that are used in specific instances. GIMP used Scheme (a variant of Lisp) for its scripting language for a while.
      Haskell as a functional language fills a niche that allows it to tersely solve certain problems.
      Lua became popular for many video games, specifically for extensibility. It is also used with nmap.
      TL1 is still used on many telecom devices.

    9. Re:LISP by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      See the Great Lisp War

    10. Re:LISP by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I've read the manual for LISP which means I know some syntax and understand nothing. You need to actually create something useful in a language to start to grok it. But I've never had a project where I thought "you know what this calls for? LISP!" What kind of projects have you used LISP for? I want to keep an eye out for such a task.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re:LISP by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I believe it to be more than just syntax. Languages like Ruby added some of Lisps "meta" ability on top of an Algol-family-influenced (C, Pascal, Ada, VB, etc.) style of syntax, BUT it will probably remain a niche language because meta ability plus complex syntax is recipe for write-only code if the developer is not careful.

      The lesson is that you have to constrain either syntax or meta-ability to make the language practical for common usage.

      Complex syntax and powerful meta abilities in a language creates too many opportunities to make abstraction spaghetti.

    12. Re:LISP by jwymanm · · Score: 1

      No, it is not. Check out rainbow parens.. also do yourself a favor and count the number in different statements across different languages. There can be, and usually are, barely more. They are way more than made up for by removing a boatload of other syntax and constructs.. Lisp is able to be a lot more elegant because of them.

    13. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lisp uses retarded, outmoded keywords like cons and car and cdr. No serious programmer wants to look at filth like that.

    14. Re:LISP by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      the same level that HP calculators fail at: infix notation for math.

      HP calculators use postfix notation, not infix. Infix is what is natural for humans. Lisp uses neither infix nor postfix: Lisp uses prefix notation.

    15. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LISP -- absolutely. Not widely influential, though, but people thinking in LISP seem to be unable to express their thoughts in any other programming language. It took a long time for Lambda expressions to appear in other languages.

      TRAC had some influence, though mainly because it was hedged about by various protection mechanisms. People created their own text-processing languages instead.

      I wish BCPL had been more influential -- one of the conclusions was (if I still remember) that use of white space to indicate syntax was a mistake. Languages such as Pascal, and other Algol-class language learned from that and avoided it, but the lesson seems to have been forgotten.

    16. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say that; LISP's syntax is not obscure by any means. It's the simplest thing. (operation operand1 operand2), and that ALL of its syntax basically.

      It is, however, so different in its utter simplicity, than most programmers used to C-style languages discard it and disparage it.

    17. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but surely your language only uses new and fancy keywords. I hope it doesn't have int, function, define, class... who still uses that shit? \s

      > No serious programmer wants to look at filth like that.

      Yeah, Richard Stallman is not a serious programmer. Nor is John Carmack. You've got no idea what you're talking about.

    18. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The syntax is too obscure for most mainstream programmers.

      Uh WHAT?!?!?

      Lisp as a programming language does not even have a syntax. You directly write down the parse tree in a data representation optimized for efficient list entry and almost nothing else.

      You can learn all of Lisp's "syntax" and "grammar" in a quarter of an hour. Which is the actual problem most human programmers have with Lisp: they want more rather than fewer distinctive structuring elements.

      The syntax, if you can even call it that, is dead-pan simple. It's just the programs that look like an unstructured mess unless you are both accustomed to Lisp and the typical formatting conventions as well as heed them carefully. The computer will still understand you if you don't. This isn't Python.

    19. Re:LISP by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I prefer this one: https://xkcd.com/297/

    20. Re:LISP by naris · · Score: 2

      (reason (there ( is ( for ( LISP ( remain (obscure (it ( did ))))))))

    21. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LISP syntax is not obscure, if you talk about all the parentheses. They are the counterpart to C++ brackets "{" and "}", the only difference is the parentheses are placed on one line at the end, so the statements end like this: ")))))". Which actually corresponds to "}}}}" but put on new lines. No different.

    22. Re:LISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, don't know the meaning of obscure do you?

      After all, what syntax?

  21. MUMPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS

    This unholy abomination is often tied into your healthcare systems. At the minimum, modern health care software has to be able to speak it to communicate to the old iron still used by hospitals. Often times, you'll still see the software designed in it. The best thing about it is the compactness of the code, which hearkened back to the day when 640kb of memory was all anyone needed. It compressed so much and encouraged such short variable length that mentally unwinding code is extremely difficult, especially when those variables are functionally database queries.

    1. Re:MUMPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitter? Once you learn how to use M you can write things which rip through data faster than anything else.

    2. Re:MUMPS by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Lumps?

    3. Re:MUMPS by geo3rge · · Score: 1

      The company I used to work for uses MUMPS. The result is endless queues because nothing can get done (or properly tested), an bloated programming department, and a serious drain on profitability.

      Yes, it was designed in the 1970s, when every byte counted, but it is an abomination of a language. Try doing any mathematical computations, for example.

      Fortunately, the days of the large clinical labs are numbered. For many tests, transporting the sample costs more than performing the test, so at the least, using smartphones (or equivalent) to do point-of-care testing is much better, in terms of both cost and quality.

    4. Re:MUMPS by geo3rge · · Score: 1

      I got this comment from the MUMPS programmers at my former company. This might have been true in the 1970s or even the 1980s. However, it is simply no longer true. In addition, MUMPS is horrible for doing computations using data, the code is all but impossible to maintain, and has no modern tools.

  22. JCL by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Job Control Language.

  23. uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are no important obscure languages. We shouldn't be hunting around for these tidbit languages that give half assed results. We should be focused on the tech that really brings to the table which is the very garden variety javascript.

    It's not to say obscure languages aren't out there, but their usage is often seriously illogical when stacked up against a timeline, getting the job done, and having other people be able to come in and do maintenance or co-create.

    Also, these nitty languages aren't universalized and the GUI you can produce with them often cannot hold a candle to simple CSS done well which can flex across multi-dimensional displays easily.

    Why is it that just looking at it as a very straight forward simple task is never at the front of peoples minds? It's such a huge thing in terms of actually seeing a project get done instead of everyone ego masturbating over buzz word languages.

    1. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to add to my original post, the same goes for javascript frameworks, their pointless and useless, and often aren't doing anything that standard javascript doesn't already do. Angular.JS has particularly earned my ire in this respect in terms of it being entirely a buzz word that doesn't bring anything to the table that wasn't already there to begin with.

    2. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, why would anyone want to use a new-fangled language when you can already write everything in assembly?

    3. Re:uh by david.emery · · Score: 1

      Would you fly in an airplane whose flight control software was written in Javascript?

    4. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes
      I could see the logic controls already
      var airplane={
        leftWing:{flap1:'',flap2:'',flap3:''},
        rightWing:{flap1:'',flap2:'',flap3:''},
        tail:{lfap1:'',flap2:''},
        fuel:60,
        speed:110,
        latitude:1231231,
        longitude:123211
      };
      You could add in other things, keep variables such as the angle that each flap should be at, and run logic on it so flaps match angle given.

      I could see no issues with it. In fact it would be easily maintained, standardized, and universal just as I said.

      Don't let that stop you though, nobody listens to me even though I'm the only sane human being left on the planet, it's lonely.

    5. Re:uh by Xolotl · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should consider thinking outside of the box of 'GUIs which can flex across multi-dimensional displays' ... there's a lot more to computing than that ...

    6. Re:uh by juanfgs · · Score: 1

      Also, these nitty languages aren't universalized and the GUI you can produce with them often cannot hold a candle to simple CSS done well which can flex across multi-dimensional displays easily.

      Yours has to be the most clueless comment I've ever seen. Are you aware that there is more to software than the webpage of California based start up? Do you know that there are many mission-critical systems with specific needs that actually sparked interest in creating new languages? Erlang was born out of the need to handle several telecommunication systems by Ericsson and it's still rocking in that field.

      I can't help but picture you as the typical Javascript hipster pushing to use NodeJS since he doesn't want to learn anything new.

      I really hope I won't be around when you guys rebuild all the software that controls atomic ICBMs in Javascript + Reactjs because we will be fucked.

    7. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a huge component. Windows 95 dominated, and it's elements still remain relevant today and their revolution on computing and usability was directly related to a good user interface.

      I do know there is more than that, but when these little languages can't do that part, they get to being more of a time sink than a help.

    8. Re:uh by snadrus · · Score: 1

      LIke it's better to fly on languages with buffer overflows & stack smashing?

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    9. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm aware there is unnecessary complexity and everyone wanking it saying how awesome they are. They are not, their GUI's suck, and their operations are mystical complicated and obfuscated which is useless and silly.

      Don't let that stop you, being the last sane human on the planet is lonely, and I accept that.

      Your correct as well, I don't want to learn anything new, I am a pattern matching intelligence and part of my pattern is time and energy in relation to task.

      I worked my way through with various tools, they failed me, javascript worked, and I stopped learning them because I'm not doing this to use my brain as a data storage device, I'm trying to accomplish something. Also yes, for the same reason I went to nodeJs it allowed me to accomplish my task faster, and with easier to read/update code which is part of what all this computing is about, getting it DONE.

    10. Re:uh by david.emery · · Score: 1

      Well that just goes to show how little you know about programming languages as a topic. Ada is one of many languages that guarantees array bounds are checked and null pointers cannot be dereferenced. (If either of those are attempted, an exception is thrown.)

    11. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, you sound like a project leech who recommends total garbage just to bleed the company/client. Then you get them into a situation where they are stuck with some non-standard thing that needs super experts just to get anything done, a nightmare of spaghetti.

      My way is better, it is direct clean and simple.

    12. Re:uh by Xolotl · · Score: 1

      Most of the elements of Windows 95 were not revolutionary, they were just widespread (in the consumer space), but anyway ...

      The point is there's no need for these "little languages" (not so little, just not necessarily well-known to the man in the street) to do GUIs, and why would there be when perfectly good GUIs can be built in C/C++/Java/Javascript/whatever. No one in their right mind builds GUIs in Fortran, Erlang, Ada .. doesn't mean they're a time sink.

  24. Pascal? by KatchooNJ · · Score: 1

    Is Pascal used anywhere still? Should I put it back on my resume? Maybe the military uses it in the missile silos with those big ole 8 inch floppies.

    --
    "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
    1. Re:Pascal? by NothingWasAvailable · · Score: 1

      Still one of my favorite languages. Readable, simple, strongly typed. I think Modula-2 is the better language (Pascal plus the extensions that make it usable for real development). IBM's VS Pascal was sort of Modula-2 in a Big Blue wrapper.

    2. Re:Pascal? by KatchooNJ · · Score: 1

      I haven't programmed in Pascal in ages, but I do only really have fond memories of it. It was nice and slick. Very easy to read and write in.

      --
      "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
    3. Re:Pascal? by Halo1 · · Score: 2

      Is Pascal used anywhere still?

      We still get a lot of downloads, so I assume yes :)

      --
      Donate free food here
    4. Re:Pascal? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Yes. I dread the days I have to look at pascal code and people's use of the with keyword. Someone needs a big punch in the cock for that.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:Pascal? by pottsj · · Score: 1

      I code in Object Pascal using the Delphi/RAD Studio IDE. I can't say that I know how many people are using it but it must be significant. At least enough for Embarcadero to justify it's continued development. They've been on a six month release cycle for several years now and have a new version available today.

    6. Re:Pascal? by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Modula-2!

      I had only bought my brand new Mac SE at the time I visited the Montreal Mac Club where the owners of Metcom introduced their new Metcom Modula-2. Only reference I could find is a MacGUI announcement dated '88.

      Metcom would later rebrand as Metroworks and the M2 compiler/IDE would grow to become the famed CodeWarrior dev environment that completely took over Mac development at the switch to PPC, because Apple's MPW was lacking in support of their own architecture (Oh! the sweet revenge that was ProjectBuilder).

      I still have the original Metcom Modula-2 binders and the rebranded Metroworks Modula-2 hard-cover bound books (the yellow series). Out of nostalgia, I crack the books open once in a while. The smell bring back memories. I shipped a few apps in M-2.

    7. Re:Pascal? by MouseR · · Score: 1

      This said, a bit more obscure was Oberon-F. Purely an academic system but it had interesting ideas such as bytecode (before Java) and running-code embedding of UI in text files. That was oddly cool. Apple tried that in OpenDoc but the whole thing failed miserably.

    8. Re:Pascal? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Pasca is still in existence, see: http://www.embarcadero.com/pro...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Pascal? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, if you don't grasp the with keyword ... I hope I never meet you and have never to judge if you get hired or not.

      The with keyword is actually one of the most important thing modern languages lack.

      Luckily Groovv has it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Pascal? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I get it, it just becomes an issue when it is overused and since I didn't develop the original code (it is about as old as I am) trying to figure out what item is actually being referenced at times is a pain especially since the code I am stuck working on has multiple structures with overlapping fields field names that are used in the same function and the original coders like to use lots of global variables .

      --
      Time to offend someone
  25. others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about SNOBOL , APL ,ADA, PL/1 ,LISP , ALGOL etc.

  26. Ada? by mlts · · Score: 1

    It can be debated if Ada is obscure or not, but it has an important place in computing: Programs made from it can be made provably secure. Very few languages can do this.

    Of course, with most dev houses, being able to have a build tree that can compile an executable for packaging on ship date is the most important thing out there, but if someone actually cared to write code where security or life safety is an issue, there is a language, that isn't too unpopular, that can be used for this.

  27. Big Trak Logo by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    My first exposure to programming was Big Trak, a tank-like toy that you could program to move around the room and perform various functions. A few years later, I would be introduced to Logo at school. I had no difficulty in picking up the language, as I've been using it indirectly for years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Trak

    1. Re:Big Trak Logo by RestlessWarrior · · Score: 1

      I had totally forgotten about that. I had one of those as well - and the dump bed add-on trailer. That was a cool toy for its time.

  28. MUMPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Possibly not obscure, but tons of medical software was written in MUMPS

  29. WEB by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How about WEB then? (and no it is not HTML, Javascript or anything to do with the WWW!) It's the programming language used to write TeX which itself lies behind LaTeX which is widely used by scientists and engineers to typeset papers involving maths as well as for theses, text books etc.

    1. Re:WEB by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      WEB is not a programming language.

      It is a system/structure/format/layer for doing Literate Programming (LP). WEB sits on top of whatever language you choose, and has two translators: TANGLE and WEAVE. TANGLE takes your LP source, throws away the documentation, and translates the code into your target language for the compiler to digest (which happened to be Pascal in the early TeX days). WEAVE does the opposite: It formats the documentation and code for reading by a human.

    2. Re:WEB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WEB is just Pascal with an escaping mechanism for switching between TeX and Pascal. It doesn't really count as a unique language. More interesting is that TeX is written in Pascal, which is such a simple and straightforward language that it can be trivially translated to C or any other modern language.

      Had I known how awesome Pascal was (from a theoretical perspective and, as in this case, a very practical sense), and that it was used by one the most famous computer scientists of our time to implement one of the most useful and enduring pieces of software of our time, I might have pursued a comp.sci degree. Instead, I walked out of my first Pascal class in college and changed majors because, having been self-taught and already relatively proficient in several other languages, I thought CS had nothing to offer me. Actually, I doubt I wouldn't have changed majors, but maybe I would have minored in CS.

  30. French? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was forced to learn it and it sounds like someone having something stuck in his/her throat. Does that count?

  31. LISP? CMS-2? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    I depends on what you consider "obscure". If LISP counts, it is probably the most important obscure language ever, just because it influenced the design of nearly every major modern "scripting" language. Particularly those that aren't procedural.

    If you mean languages most have probably never heard of, I'd go with CMS-2 It was (and probably still is) used extensively in shipboard systems in the US Navy. It was also the Navy's first crack at a "unified" language. This led to a concerted effort to get rid of the hundreds of single-purpose languages that helped make DoD systems so expensive and difficult to maintain. That led to the development of Ada, its temporary manadate, and to about a 20 year period starting in the 80's where small languages were looked down upon by the CS community.

    This has recently been changing, with a profusion of new "Domain-Specific Languages". Give it a new buzzword, and what was old is cool again.

  32. CULPRIT by plopez · · Score: 1

    A language used with graph (though we called them 'Network Databases' instead) and NoSQL database engines in the 80's and 90's. CULPRIT is to COBOL as SQL is to Java or C#. Or what ever NoSQL query language you are using is to whatever programming language you are using.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  33. LOL by slashdice · · Score: 0

    Looks guys, dice is kicking you to the curb. (I think even slashdot posted that news in a timely fashion) You don't have to run their shitty articles anymore. I'm not saying you need to walk into Shravan Goli's office, drop trou, and leave a nice fat turd on his desk, but at least stop posting this garbage. ok? thanks.

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
  34. Definitely Elixir by TheCount22 · · Score: 1

    Elixir is a functional, concurrent, general-purpose programming language that runs on the Erlang virtual machine (BEAM). Elixir builds on top of Erlang to provide distributed, fault-tolerant, soft real-time, non-stop applications but also extends it to support metaprogramming with macros and polymorphism via protocols.

    Think of it as a mix of Ruby, Haskell and Erlang without too many compromises.

    1. Re:Definitely Elixir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The compromise it's that it's a new language that so few people use, which means you're boned if someone writes an app for you in Elixir. Have fun finding someone to modify it cheaply.

      Besides, I don't understand how you call a 3 year-old language important. It doesn't do anything special.

    2. Re:Definitely Elixir by TheCount22 · · Score: 1

      Any good developer can learn it. I was able to learn Erlang fairly quickly I don't see that Elixir is any different.

  35. English. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    English. So many programmers fail to understand that there's more to working than being the best damn problem solver you can be. If you're not capable of working with other people, capable of keeping other people up to date on your activities and issues... if you can't give criticism without coming off like a jerk, and you can't accept criticism without overreacting and taking it personally, you are constructing a glass ceiling over yourself. You are forcing yourself into a reputation of "great calculator to be used as a tool when needed" instead of "great person who gets shit done."

  36. For me, definitely RPG by RPGonAS400 · · Score: 1
    Since I make my living at it, and have for 34 years, RPG is by far the most important.

    There is still a large community using it and supporting it.

  37. Little knownfact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Windows kernel is written entirely in Brainfuck.

  38. Rexx, J by Wargames · · Score: 1

    ReXX (and variant Kexx) for text; J for maths, Occam for parallel processing.

    --
    -- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
    1. Re:Rexx, J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was just going to say Occam, but you beat me to it! ;-)

    2. Re:Rexx, J by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      I was looking to see if anyone would mention J. Now that's obscure!

    3. Re:Rexx, J by epine · · Score: 1

      I once spend a day hacking on J. Never warmed up to the ASCII replacements of the original APL character set.

      In university, long ago, they had a mandatory course for English majors that used SNOBOL. My willingness to help out with SNOBOL programming got me more attention from girls than anything else I did there.

      On another note, I wouldn't want to be the person tasked with proving the Turing completeness of DSSSL. It might not be hard (one way or the other), but I just wouldn't want to have to do it.

  39. obscure and omnipresent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    languages of IEC61131-3, running industrial machinery all around the world

  40. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For the avoidance of doubt, Go, Dart, Swift and Rust are top tier hipster, and a kitten masturbates god every time someone writes their first Hello World in any of them.

    Ruby is so obviously hipster that not even hipsters think it's cool anymore.

    Every language developed in the past 15 years which promises AMAZINGLY EASY PARALLEL PROGRAMMING OPPORTUNITIES is hipster. Pro-tip: parallel programming is hard, and an excellent understanding of just what the fuck you're doing is what'll give you efficient, bug-free code - not syntactic sugar.

    C and Perl are the quintessential general-purpose languages.

    Python is arguably hipster-LISP.

    PHP was special-purpose in the days where it was that or cgi-perl, but I'm not sure what the fuck PHP is now. It still feels like BASIC but for web programmers.

    Javascript is a great bit of general-purpose quick-and-dirty, but most Javascript libraries make it hipster. jQuery in particular is a great example of how it doesn't matter one fucking bit how incompetent software developers are because Intel makes some really fucking fast CPUs these days. This is really annoying, as the base language is just not-awful enough to be good.

  41. Lua by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

    "Important" tends to depend on the industry. For videogame programmers, I'd submit that Lua might be a candidate. While C++ reigns supreme for game engine and client code, and C# has become fairly common for tools programming, Lua has proven to be extremely popular as a plug-in scripting language, as it's free, lightweight, easy to embed in game clients, reasonably powerful for it's small size, and (being written in C) completely portable.

    It's famously used by World of Warcraft, of course. At LucasArts, it replaced the SCUMM language in the Monkey Island games (note in the game the SCUMM bar was replaced by the Lua bar). It's also used by many other game developers, both prior and since.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  42. SNOBOL4 by plopez · · Score: 1

    and we cant forget NORTH, ay?

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:SNOBOL4 by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      There was a compiled version of SNOBOL4 called SPITBOL. Source code is available, and there is a macro implementation, so if someone wanted to it could be made to live again...

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:SNOBOL4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had to write a Roman numeral calculator in SNOBOL4 once. It's a mind-bender the first time around. It made PERL easier to learn.

  43. awk by grub · · Score: 3, Interesting


    While it isn't considered a full-blown language, awk is pretty useful for a lot of purposes. Best of all, it's included with every *nix flavour.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:awk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a few hundred lines of Awk that can scan a comma-delimited file of data, determine the data types, and build a Sas program that inputs the dataset. All without having Sas installed. We use this to read datasets we receive from Experian and other data suppliers. Some of these files have hundreds of columns by 50-100 thousand observations. It's nice to know what the dataset looks like before having to load it, not to mention naming the variables.

  44. Skill and TCL in Design Automation by NothingWasAvailable · · Score: 1

    There would be almost no chip designs without Skill code. It's a proprietary lisp derivative used as the extension language for Cadence's tools.

    TCL ... much less obscure ... without which we would not be able to use Mentor's tools to check and verify chip designs.

    1. Re:Skill and TCL in Design Automation by skids · · Score: 1

      TCL also has a waning wind behind its sails in automation of some router platforms, though the trend in higher layer network gear seems to be drifting towards python from what I can see.

    2. Re: Skill and TCL in Design Automation by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 1

      TCL is a really important language with a lot of other languages with big debt to. It is not used as much anymore, but languages like PowerShell borrowed really heavily from it. PowerShell basic philosophy is that pretty much everything is a command line, and they all interface to an underlying, more robust language. In the case of PowerShell that is C#, but in the case of TCL that was C. TCL was designed to be a glue language, something you could easily script against but that could call underlying more performant native code. It still gets used for that today, in a great example of it is the f5 load balancing platform. TCL is the language of iRules, and you can write scripts against it that are calling native C functions and can modify any piece of code on the network at wire speed. F5 networking gear is extremely advanced, and you will find it in the heart of most large corporate networks. And it is still TCL that plays arguably one of the most important roles in that equipment. And don't forget about TK, which was the graphics platform that combined with TCL helped it to really take off. It still is one of the easier ways to make up a GUI. PS - there are now plenty of typical developer rumblings to replace TCL on f5 equipment with JavaScript, but here's hoping that never happens. TCL is much better suited to what it does, and the last thing we need is mission critical equipment that is constantly changing JavaScript frameworks every other week.

      --
      Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
    3. Re: Skill and TCL in Design Automation by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 1

      Please pardon the really bad autocorrect above. That's what I get for posting this with a mobile device. I was trying to say a lot of languages owe a big debt to TCL. Also in the case of PowerShell, its design philosophy of the same. In PowerShell, almost everything is a command (cmdlet), but they are compiled as and interface with a different underlying language (C#). That way you can script really easily with PowerShell at a high level, but the underlying code is much more robust and fast. And that was basically the TCL philosophy, albeit with C. TCL was the glue language you scripted with, but C was the language that did all the work, and did it fast.

      --
      Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
  45. C++, hands down by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I use C++ all day, every day. Every time the C++ standardization committee meets, the language gets more obscure to me.

    1. Re:C++, hands down by david.emery · · Score: 2

      I use C++ all day, every day. Every time the C++ standardization committee meets, the language gets more obscure to me.

      Someone with mod points mod parent up +1 either funny or insightful.
      (I've already contributed to this thread, so I'm disqualified.)

    2. Re:C++, hands down by johannesg · · Score: 1

      Odd. Since C++11 I've used the new features to remove about 15% of my old code base (which is about 300,000 lines), and I find the new code significantly easier to read and maintain. What new feature is giving you trouble?

    3. Re:C++, hands down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not as much a cancer as an alien life form, huh? Most other computer languages evolve. C++ festers.

    4. Re:C++, hands down by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Odd. Since C++11 I've used the new features to remove about 15% of my old code base (which is about 300,000 lines), and I find the new code significantly easier to read and maintain. What new feature is giving you trouble?

      Sorry for the slow response. R-value move semantics took me a little getting used to, and I still find them difficult to reason about.

      But the biggest, ongoing issue is template resolution. The process can be extremely complex, and yet happens without the programmer being able to see if/how it unfolds step by step, especially with SFINAE being an accepted principle. And the resulting error messages are usually indecipherable, especially when trying to use the STL without having a deep expertise in its proper use.

    5. Re:C++, hands down by johannesg · · Score: 1

      I agree on the templates, but I thought we were discussing issues that were specific to C++11 (and later). In general, I find that auto, the range-based for loop, lambdas, deleted functions, override, etc. as well as the new additions to STL all vastly improve code quality. Move semantics, once I understood what it was, felt like a hole I never knew was there that was finally filled.

  46. There are also proprietary languages by the_other_one · · Score: 1

    There are also proprietary languages such as OpenEdge ABL (Advanced Business Language)

    --
    134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
    1. Re:There are also proprietary languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at a company that depends on a system written in OpenEdge ABL. I wish they had better free tools to play around with the system, not sure how I feel about so-called 4GLs, but it would still be fun.

  47. Verilog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Similar in structure to C. Probably every microprocessor running a browser that displays Slashdot was designed using Verilog.

  48. GAMBAS by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

    It's like VB6 except for being awesome and Linux-exclusive. http://gambas.sourceforge.net/... http://gambaswiki.org/wiki

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
  49. language of the heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    digits that really count..... tears innocence truth mercy conscience compassion,, our softer side with extra zingyness.. spirit of creation momkind newclear options no bomb us more mom us hugs not thugs.... see you there.

  50. Old and died I think PICK AT by Technician · · Score: 1

    I remember running into a PICK AT system for a database application server quite a few years ago. Making a back up of the OS was difficult due to the non standard format. Found very little info on it at the time which made life difficult to service the system. It ran on a PC AT in the time of DOS.

    Wikipedia on PICK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  51. Julia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://julialang.org

    The next "big" language in the waiting/making

  52. ((((L)(i))(s))(p)) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After learning Lisp, it's depressing how inelegant other programming languages are.

  53. You don't know obscure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of your junk mail comes mostly from 1 of 3 languages.. .PReS, EZ-Letter, or GMC. While none of them can be used to write their own compiler, I have used at least two of them to describe instructions so complex that I ended up using fuzzy logic routines to reduce the amount of instructions from 10 pages of tangled if then else elseif to about half a page of number crunching insanity. All of them can access outside resources, pull in their own custom made DLLs, and so on.

    Keep in mind, each of these languages is designed to run on commercial printers that print at ratings of multiple inches per second.

  54. HiroMacro's Language by cephus440 · · Score: 0

    It's as odd as FORTRAN (which I still use to for consulting). However, it automates my Game of War farms! Check out the documentation!

  55. including postscript, etc by rewindustry · · Score: 2

    LISP is the correct answer - it's in almost every printer on the planet, to begin with - by far the most ubiquitous of all, and as obscure as reverse polish is.

    1. Re:including postscript, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's in almost every printer on the planet

      I'm confused. Are you saying printers use LISP to process Postscript data?

    2. Re:including postscript, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The language in most printers that have importance is Postscript. That is not Lisp, it is Forth.

    3. Re:including postscript, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PostScript is not Forth. PostScript is far superior to Forth. They are both postfix languages, but PostScript is much nicer.

    4. Re:including postscript, etc by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Printers on this planet "speak" PostScript or PCL or other printer languages. Certainly not LISP.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:including postscript, etc by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Out of academic interest, where in every printer on the planet would you find LISP?

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    6. Re:including postscript, etc by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I believe you're confusing LISP with either FORTH or Postscript, since LISP does not use reverse polish notation, nor is it commonly found in printers (Postscript is similar to FORTH but according to its creators is not a derivative of it).

  56. Does Fortran count? by ventsyv · · Score: 1

    Fortran is used for all sorts of science code but I'm not sure if it counts as obscure. It tends to be used by older programmers / engineers so it might become obscure in another 10 years or so when they all retire.

    1. Re:Does Fortran count? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I'd call it obscure because a lot of people seem to criticize it without actually knowing it. It has a reputation of being old and clunky, even though it has developed enormously, and many "modern" languages still lack the parallel math capabilities it had in the early 90s.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Does Fortran count? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say f70 (77? Can't remember of the top of my head. It's been a while) is obscure for sure. It also has a lot of extremely efficient, well tested, highly reliable code written in it. I know that I've linked to it from time to time from c++ and will probably do again.

  57. which part of obscure by rewindustry · · Score: 1

    did you not understand?

    well versed in the force you are not.

  58. VHDL by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    No comparison. VHDL.

    Every day you touch dozens or hundreds of things containing chips designed in VHDL, and you've never heard of it. Well, maybe you have, but no one else has.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:VHDL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verilog's a similar language. In most every single computer's processor that loaded this web page was designed with either VHDL or Verilog.

  59. Assembly by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 2

    As languages further abstract away the underlying hardware, it's helpful to understand how it all works. Especially if you've never had to step into an assembly language debugger. The most likely (and probably relevant) architecture would be x86/x86-64, followed closely by some variation of ARM. IA64 isn't relevant, but if you read up on a little bit of it (there was a series of articles on Raymond Chen's blog a few weeks back), you'll learn about an interesting take on a processor architecture (which offloaded much of the optimization work to the compiler; it was also heavily slanted towards parallel processing unlike x86).

    --
    All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
    1. Re:Assembly by FranTaylor · · Score: 0

      As languages further abstract away the underlying hardware

      yes indeed the intricacies of fuel injector repair are essential tools for the modern driver, in fact you can't back out of the driveway without a phd in chemical engineering so you will understand everything happening in the combustion chamber.

    2. Re:Assembly by skids · · Score: 1

      After having watched numerous threads on xda fizzle because the participents didn't have the ASM chops to reverse engineer bootloaders, I think GP's point is pretty valid. Don't underestimate just how much control humble boot/driver ROM writers actually have over the landscape on which everyone else walks around.

      Also learning ASM gives you a better feel for how the hardware sees your higher level code, so it helps to build instincts about what is likely to work well and what will drag ass.

      BTW after x86 and ARM, or maybe even before ARM, MIPS is a good one to know.

    3. Re:Assembly by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      I would say that the inverse is more true, it's a damned shame that the people who design computers are completely clueless about the people who program them and what their problems are. For example what idiot decided that pointers are good things for humans to use in their programs? They should go down in history as one of the great causes of misery in our world.

    4. Re:Assembly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example what idiot decided that pointers are good things for humans to use in their programs?

      There are almost no languages that don't have pointers. What you think of as "an object" is actually a pointer to an object, in almost every language in existence. Even a URL is a type of pointer. Pointers and pointer indirection are a fundamental part of computer science. What clueless idiot would think you could program software without using pointers?

    5. Re:Assembly by tomxor · · Score: 1

      Also learning ASM gives you a better feel for how the hardware sees your higher level code, so it helps to build instincts about what is likely to work well and what will drag ass.

      Fully agree with this, and beyond to the hardware level, memory, caches etc.

      However... i don't know how to write ASM at all. And i primarily code in JavaScript! *hides behind monitor from elitists*.

      I read some books on optimisation out of interest and inevitably about assembly, i found Michael Abrash's books particularly interesting combined with the historical context: "Michael Abrash's Graphics Programming Black Book" and "Zen of Assembly Language". Although at the time i couldn't always follow the ASM code line for line, the concepts were very clear and i have found them very useful even in my pitifully high level language... and anyone who has read them should understand why.

    6. Re:Assembly by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear. I'd also add that if you come from the x86/8x-64 world, ARM assembler feels like a godsend.

  60. Halide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Specialized Image Processing language.

    http://halide-lang.org

    Still very bleeding edge, but already under heavy use by Adobe and Google, to name a few.

  61. Programming Language: e by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The aspect-oriented programming language e has been in use for 15+ years to create design verification environments for functionally verifying hardware and systems designs. It is one of the most elegant languages I have used since I started programming in 1973. -- A. Piziali

  62. 4 Suggestions. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    The chips you are using are created using SystemVerilog or VHDL mostly.
    OCAML is used a lot to formally verify the logic in those chips and C code.
    OpenSCAD is an excellent physical design language for creating 3D shapes with code rather than poking your mouse at a 3D UI.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:4 Suggestions. by mvdw · · Score: 1

      I don't think openscad is "important" in the sense of the summary, but I'd never heard of it before and it certainly looks interesting. Especially for someone like me whose brain works better dealing with text than images.

    2. Re:4 Suggestions. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      It only took me a hour to learn the openscad language and a couple more to be fluent. One day later I have a handy library of shapes for making parametric electrical enclosures.

      The ease of using openscad is making me interested in getting a 3D printer.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  63. My Specialty .... by Doitroygsbre · · Score: 1

    I've worked on some really odd-ball languages ... the ones that surprised me are:
    CA: Gen - This one is crazy ... I had never heard of it until a few years ago, and it's surprising the businesses that use this one.
    JCL - This one seems to follow me around a bit. Think DOS, but less automated and for mainframes.
    JOVIAL - I almost left this one off the list, but there is a wiki about it, so here you go.

    There are some crazier ones out there ... The military seemed to enjoy making new languages with little or no documentation back in the 60s & 70s.

    --
    There in no religion higher than truth.
    1. Re:My Specialty .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did some JCL years ago,
      More exceptions to the rules than there were rules but most business would not have run without it.
      It ran on our system 370s running MVS with VM sessions running more MVS sessions.

  64. Without doubt... PHP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is probably the best documented language that nobody can master.

    It defies definition.

  65. gcc linker command language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Crucial for a huge amount of software, yet very obscure.

  66. Domain specific languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The controls for almost every process control or power generation system in the world are written in Function Block, Relay Ladder, or Sequential Function Chart languages (or the vendor specific equivalent). There is little standardization, though there is the IEC-61131-3 language specification and some fairly widely used tools like Matlab Simulink.

  67. Bliss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone remember Bliss from the Vax/VMS days?

    1. Re:Bliss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or pdp11, or TOPS (pdp10), or alpha VMS? (A good bit of alpha VMS is or was in Bliss. PITA to debug
      because that segment of VMS is run before full processes are active but a nice language.

  68. CORAL66 & JOVIAL by CodeArtisan · · Score: 1

    CORAL66 and JOVIAL are both quite important languages that were used in military applications. I learned Prolog as an undergrad, but not sure how obscure or widely used it is these days.

  69. Re:Avoid INTERCAL by ZahrGnosis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    R is also only one of several even more obscure languages in that domain, including Julia and Stan... is MAPLE still a thing? Less obscure is MATLAB, and Mathematica... (all platforms as well as languages) they've all got their special strengths as usual.

    Swift is more popular than R, yet still obscure compared to the top 10 or so. I don't know how ABAP is still alive.

    Prolog, Scheme, Groovy, SCALA... there are lots. Even LISP shows up below R in some lists.

    SQL is similarly not obscure in its area, but worth learning and you rarely see it in a list of general programming languages (because it isn't). But the commercial vendors all ship their SQL with strong variants that extend the language and do more common language functions like looping. I speak of PL/SQL, TSQL, and their ilk, which all have a touch of obscurity in the same way R does.

    I might recommend targeting obscure libraries or platforms also. CUDA isn't a language so much as an architecture; OpenCV is interesting.

    If you're looking for jobs, take those, plug them into a job search engine and see what interests you. Languages tend to correlate with industries fairly well. If you want to work on Genomics, you'll see different languages at the top than if you want to work on Wall Street.

    Avoid INTERCAL job postings at all costs.

  70. Mumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As other have pointed out, R is big time. I work in big hospital system, and our research scientists use the living crap out of it.

    But also in the hospital space is mumps, or M, or cache, or whatever we are calling it this decade. It's the foundation for Epic, the leading Electronic Medical Record system. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on it, millions of folks medical records are stored in it, it's big time too.. Banks use it too..

  71. Mumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mumps

  72. tcl/tk by drolli · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its incredible how many *huge* simulation and engineering systems, adminirtative tools, and other things are still powered by a language the mos important datatype of which is a string.

    I for my part discovered tcl/tk as a programming language for everyday use only in 2007, and even if my tcl/tk programs were not that elegant (as e.g. the equivalent python program) they were compact and *extremely* stable (within 4 years of round-the clock data acquisition with sessions of months each, i never observed a crash attributable to the core libraries, no memory leaks etc....)

  73. IBM RPG by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    RPG was, and still is in some cases, the backbone of a lot of systems run by big corporations, banks, and government organizations. It's more of a back-office sort of language so it's not highly visible.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  74. Smalltalk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things in later languages that we owe to Smalltalk:
    Closures
    Duck typing
    MVC
    JIT compilation within the VM
    The modern IDE
    Debugging by inspection
    TDD
    Hot-swapping running code

    1. Re:Smalltalk by cowdung · · Score: 1

      While I agree that Smalltalk is an incredibly important language.. some/many of the things you mention came with Lisp first:

      Closures
      Duck typing
      JIT compilation within the VM

      Some truly innovative things Smalltalk brought us:

      The GUI as is know today
      The modern mouse
      OO (Simula was incomplete)
      Extremely simple/clean syntax
      A truly interactive, dynamic, programmable, inspectable, live development environment
      Platform independent UIs (several flavors: same on all platforms vs best for each platform)
      Truly interactive debugging
      Method based version control (see ENVY/Developer)
      Sophisticated configuration management

  75. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mostly agree... except.

    Python is not a hipster language. It is now a general purpose script. It might have started as a hipster language, but everything new has to start that way.

  76. PostScript by dthanna · · Score: 1

    What other language contains the beauty of both RPN style programming and the ability to draw a Bezier curve?

    Great language... actually a lot more powerful print language than PDF (yes, I know PDF isn't a language you pedantic insensitive clod!)

  77. Some more languages by robi5 · · Score: 1

    Kdb/Q, K, and while at it, J and APL. Cool stuff.

    ABAP/4 of SAP is the modern day COBOL, even uglier and backwards.

    How about FP and FFP, created by Backus, after realising the imperative mess that his FORTRAN unleashed on the World?

  78. MUMPS, JCL/REXX, JOVIAL by sirwired · · Score: 2

    MUMPS - A horrific health-record management specific language inexplicably still in wide use.

    JCL and REXX - Used for Mainframe scripting. Few mainframe shops will be without a JCL guru. (JCL is used for non-interactive scripting, REXX is used for the sorts of things you might use Perl for everywhere else.)

    JOVIAL - An IAL offshoot that still runs much of the US ATC system until the FAA finally finishes replacing the systems that run it.

    1. Re:MUMPS, JCL/REXX, JOVIAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company I used to work for ( a very large clinical lab) uses MUMPS, and it is severely inhibiting innovation, and probably cuts into their profits. It is, as you say, horrific. No floating-point type, impossible to maintain a testing environment, rotten tools, etc.

      I tried to get them to migrate to something a little less primitive -- my major project was in c -- but that would affect the power structure in the company. Moving to c (c++, etc.) would let them get rid of 90% of their programmers, and management would not stand for that.

      Fortunately, the business model for large, central labs is outmoded, and newer companies using current technology (e.g. smartphones for point-of-care testing) will clean their clock.

  79. TECO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TECO language is fairly obscure but implemented in a fair number of systems.
    Now, if the MIT dialect could be ported, it has Q registers that are named, rather than just assigned single
    character names, making it a much handier dialect to use.

    Historical note: EMACS was originally written in TECO.

  80. Maybe due to the.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Single-source' compilers?

    The only compiler I can find in the open source world is GNAT, which being written in ada without a secondary language bootstrap (C or otherwise) means you have to trust the original GNAT bootstrap binary, rather than being able to ensure trustworthyness by compiling with gcc/clang/pcc/etc to produce 'known clean' compiler binaries.

    Does anyone else know of a project working on producing a C/C++ ada compiler, bootstrap or otherwise, that doesn't rely on a self-hosting ada implementation with no way to verify? The original NYU compiler/interpreter was written in C but was only feature complete for ADA83, which no released GNAT version seems to have been written in.

  81. VHDL and Verilog by bsdasym · · Score: 1

    Without them, nothing else matters.

  82. Yay, FORTH FTW! by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    And its descendant is used everyday by everyone who prints out a PostScript/PDF document! :)

    Paul B.

  83. PL/B by Dadoo · · Score: 1

    http://www.sysmaker.com/infopr...

    Oh, wait... you wanted an important obscure language. Sorry. Carry on...

    --
    Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    1. Re:PL/B by unrtst · · Score: 1

      I was going to say "databus", which is the original PL/B.
      FWIW, it's still being actively used by some big/important places (http://www.dbcsoftware.com/dbcov.html).

      My favorite fun fact about it: developed in the early 1970's as an alternative to COBOL because Datapoint's 8-bit computers could not fit COBOL into their limited memory. Yeah... designed for those times when COBOL is just WAY too big.

    2. Re:PL/B by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      FWIW, it's still being actively used by some big/important places

      While I'd debate your use of "big/important", I know it's still being used; I have to deal with it every day. I was kind of hoping to stimulate a discussion where I could complain about it, but it seems there aren't enough people still using PL/B.

      Datapoint's 8-bit computers could not fit COBOL into their limited memory.

      That actually explains a lot.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    3. Re:PL/B by unrtst · · Score: 1

      I know it's still being used; I have to deal with it every day. I was kind of hoping to stimulate a discussion where I could complain about it, but it seems there aren't enough people still using PL/B.

      It's certainly complaint worthy. I haven't had to use it in a long time (about a decade, and it was old school even then), and though I did make fun of it at the time, it really wasn't that awful to work with. Maybe I was lucky to be working with a relatively well designed system, but, once I got used to some of the particulars (which didn't really take very long.. they just required a slightly different line of thought), it was easy to debug, modify, update, improve, etc. That said, I wouldn't choose to use it again unless I absolutely had to.

  84. Obscure? Yes. Important? I doubt it. by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Useless obscure languages I've programed in...

    ATLAS - Automated Test Language and Stimulation, Looks like basic or Fortran but has only basic looping and variables. If you wanted to do any data processing you dropped into FORTRAN.

    VULCAN - The Operating system/shell ATLAS ran on, which ran on an Harris H-100 computer. 128K of memory, 24 bit address buss with a whole board dedicated to the processor made of 7400 logic chips, and the size of your fridge with lots of flashing lights and thumb switches to 'program" stuff like where you'd like it to find the boot loader. 300Meg disk drive was the size of a washing machine, 10 Meg "removable" disk packs where 20" around.

    DCL - Deck Command Language - VAX 11 scripting language, nice but clunky for doing any real processing.

    JCL - Job control Language, it's not just on punch cards anymore..

    CLIPS - Used to build expert systems.. Used by NASA in the Space Shuttle, makes you wonder why software didn't become a problem for the program.

    K-Shell - Korn Shell, Heck of a way to run a Unix box..

    AWK - Unix data extraction tool, It's just Awkward.

    SED - Stream editor, companion to AWK, but really hard to follow.

    YACC - Yet another Compiler Compiler, yep, you can make your own compiler with this thing...

    RPN - Reverse Polish Notation, Programming using math primitives on a stack, you haven't lived.

    Assembly - Yep, I've twiddled the bits directly on the processor, both by dropping into assembly from C and just coding directly in Assembly.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  85. It must be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eiffel

  86. red / REBOL by tanstaaf1 · · Score: 1

    Red is a complete rewrite and upgrade of REBOL. REBOL? REBOL was rated as THE most expressive general purpose language (by a long shot) according to the famous http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/2.... But, curiously, it got no recognition. Rebol is sort of a the swiss army knife of languages (with networking, graphics, and pretty much you-name-it) All in less than ONE megabyte! No "libraries" -- the libraries are pretty nearly all built in. That seems near impossible in today's bloated world, but it happens to be true. And Red is a major reimplementation and upgrade likely to be released in 1.0 form within months. Actually red is aiming to be the world's first "full stack language" -- for everything from system's programming to DSLs and above. Download version 0.6 and read more here: red-lang.org. If you are intrigued, you can learn more, and assess for yourself the importance of rebol/ red by talking direct to the community and developers here: https://gitter.im/red/red.

    1. Re:red / REBOL by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Curiously, it got no recognition? Hm, perhaps rightly so...

      Only the core language was free and they tried to sell all kinds of extensions, it was a weird commercial enterprise with all kinds of snake oil claims. Moreover, REBOL programs are about as readable and hard to maintain as Forth programs. In fact, it comes across as nothing more than Forth with some syntactic sugar on top. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but that's the impression the language made, and the additional and frankly quite annoying language advocacy didn't make it appear any better.

  87. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by ttucker · · Score: 1

    jQuery in particular is a great example of how it doesn't matter one fucking bit how incompetent software developers are because Intel makes some really fucking fast CPUs these days.

    It might just show that targeting several different runtimes, often with different capabilities, is hard, and that smart developers use a library to abstract the problem away. What you said, is an example of how you are ignorant, and probably a dickhead.

  88. My favorite obscure language by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    Mention of C# brings back nostalgic memories of maniacal pizza-driven overnighters to finish projects in the latter days of "Windows," an operating system written by Washington-state software developer Microsoft, which you will probably remember for its office applications. It enjoyed a period of popularity ranging into the first decade of our new century and is still in use by some of my rural IT customers.

  89. Vala by allquixotic · · Score: 1

    Vala translates syntax very similar to C# into idiomatic C using GLib for object-based programming (inheritance, encapsulation, events, etc. are all supported). Hundreds of lines of Vala spits out thousands of lines of boilerplate C. You get native code that's nice and fast (reference counting is faster than GC, and you have no intermediary language like .NET/Java since it compiles to C which compiles to native). A couple of programs on popular Linux distros use Vala.

    It's a great language for plugin development, too. Unlike languages such as Python, bindings to C/GLib libraries do not require any compiled native code or runtime integration, since Vala has no special runtime outside of GLib.

    And, if for some reason Vala's development stalls and you find yourself unable to compile changes made in your Vala code, you can always take your completed project's generated C code and switch over to that being your main source code. It's less maintainable due to the increased amount of boilerplate stuff, but there are plenty of large projects that contain manually hacked idiomatic C/GLib code that's functionally equivalent to what Vala's compiler generates anyway, for all kinds of patterns, like inheritance, signals, properties, etc.

    Worst case, it saves you some time instead of having to write all that boilerplate code by hand. Best case, it saves you *A LOT* of time, by being able to write code that reads like C#.NET code, but without the runtime bindings (which constitute both a deployment headache and a source of inefficiency).

  90. Assembler? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the basis of much.

  91. Simula by jan.fjeldmark · · Score: 1

    Simula 67 was never widely used. But it is the mother of all object oriented languages. And Smalltalk was strongly influenced by it.

    1. Re:Simula by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Simula 67 was an influence on many different languages, but Smalltalk has a heavy Lisp influence that is missing in things like C++. It's the Lisp side that really gives Smalltalk the magic (though perhaps if Lisp were as commonplace as Java, it would not seem so magical to find it in Smalltalk).

      The differences are big enough that some people distinguish two schools of OOP: the Simula/Liskov/Meyers way, and the Smalltalk/Kay/Ingalls way.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Simula by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Self deserves a little note here too; started as Smalltalk 2.0, travelled, did things. Hotspot's JIT and cacheing are mostly owed to Self and the L. Peter Deutsch Smalltalk implementation. Anyway Javascript borrowed a lot from Self, which arguably makes Self the *most* important obscure language, in terms of the way it influenced the world we're living in now.

      Two cents:)

      --Casey

  92. Re:Avoid INTERCAL by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

    R is also only one of several even more obscure languages in that domain, including Julia and Stan... is MAPLE still a thing? Less obscure is MATLAB, and Mathematica... (all platforms as well as languages) they've all got their special strengths as usual.

    Don't for SAS Macro Scripting (http://support.sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/code.samples.html). Extremely influential in numerous science fields and among non-programmers.

    There's also VHDL (popular for Engineers, again, typically non-programmers), and whether you like it or not even in the Windows world DOS-Batch is still very much alive though slowly getting converted to PowerShell (derivative of C#).

    --
    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  93. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OP covered your argument in:

    If you believe the [library] you use just HAD to be built because it has some REALLY GREAT features which make it SO MUCH BETTER than the alternatives and are just ESSENTIAL for productive programming in today's HIGH-PACED environment, and its detractors just DON'T UNDERSTAND, you have a hipster language.

    Everyone knows why a developer might choose to use a library. Everyone understands that it has been historically annoying (not "hard" - just time-consuming) to write cross-platform Javascript. The problem is the popular compulsive belief that jQuery (or, even ickier, jQuery + muddled collection of plug-ins) is the choice - a conviction so strongly felt in your typically irrational case that that those who argue against jQuery are labelled "probably a dickhead". Have you gone through all the alternatives for your particular site? Are you sure you're not just working from half-decade old assumptions about browsers? Are you really reducing the cognitive load and knowledge requirements on those maintaining your code?

    jQuery is in the majority of applications premature abstraction, and premature abstraction is why we need GHz CPUs to smoothly implement the same functionality as a late-'80s Amiga.

  94. idoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those who were ever in the Stellent/Oralce UCM/Oracle Fusion Middleware world, then idoc will either occupy a nostalgic or hated place in one's heart. For such a kludgy scripting language, it is responsible for holding together more Enterprise Content Management Systems than I care to imagine.

  95. Re:Old and died I think PICK AT by bhcompy · · Score: 1

    PICK uses Data/BASIC as its language (suitably obscure). Nowadays, you run the PICK OS/database in a VM/emulator with a TCP/IP wrapper allowing it to communicate with the outside world. Still widely used in financial and accounting systems. ADP sells PICK based solutions. Very fast, very easy to use, very accurate. I prefer PICK over SQL for many databases

  96. Unlambda by Yoik · · Score: 1

    For the most obscure, if not the most important, I would nominate Unlambda. It excels at giving headaches to unwitting users.

  97. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are languages that crawl slowly out of academia, or branch out from specialist applications, or are just the drab product of commercial competition (e.g. C# vs Java). In all truth, we don't NEED more languages, so the point is not that everything new has to start a particular way, but that there are certain things we don't need more of. We don't NEED more natural human languages either, and nobody argues that the world is poorer for lack of new natural language invented every year. Fortunately, human linguists dedicate enough time to examining the richness of existing evolving languages to realise that they'd be embarrassing themselves to think they could do any better...

    Now, Python isn't a half bad prototyping tool (hence "arguably") - i.e. it's more than a a masturbatory exercise in carving out territory / adding a notch to one's belt / whatever - but it really is a lot of hipster sugar on LISP. If your brain doesn't register whitespace as meaningful, as in my case, it's very difficult to mentally process - but I do acknowledge that some people find reading LISP just as hard.

  98. Lua by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

    It's the defacto standard for games - meeting the requirement of being pretty much everywhere, but at the same time not well known. Most games with a scripting language have selected Lua because it's tiny, fast, simple and effective.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  99. Erlang by PPH · · Score: 1

    I recently came across this. Which sums up Erlang pretty well IMO.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  100. ASL by geantvert · · Score: 1

    ASL is the ACPI human language.

  101. Forth by boley1 · · Score: 1

    Did you know? (according to wikipedia) "...uses of Forth include the Open Firmware boot ROMs used by Apple, IBM, Sun, and OLPC XO-1; and the FICL-based first stage boot controller of the FreeBSD operating system."

    I only vaguely remembered reading that somewhere, but I did know that are/were many Forth controlled Telescopes (which led to a better understanding of the cosmos.)

    Personally, I used it back in the day to make very compact mission critical 24/7 programs.

  102. Re:Avoid INTERCAL by owski · · Score: 1

    PowerShell (derivative of C#).

    I wouldn't really call it a derivative of C#, syntactically they're very, very different. They both run on .NET, though, but then so does VB.NET and bunch of other unrelated languages (IronPython comes to mind).

    I'd say it's more like various shell languages, though I don't know them well enough to know which it's more like (cshell, BASH, kornshell?)

  103. APL family - collection-orientation by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I always thought "collection-oriented" languages derived from or influenced by APL are interesting, such as the "J" language, "K" language, and the "A+" language. Although, these could perhaps be called "array-oriented" since they are less about stacks, graphs, lists, etc.

    A sub-category of collection-orientation is "table oriented", which SQL is part of.

  104. Re:Some more languages - APL by theforest · · Score: 1

    APL is the strangest language I have ever encountered (college late 70s computer science), nothing like a traditional programming "language". I vaguely remember it being very cryptic and the idea was to write as much code as possible on a single line. One had to understand the parsing of the code, in addition to its cryptic use of symbols not represented in ascii/ebcdic.

  105. Re:Simula / FORTH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the question was "Which ones had an impact on the world that belies their obscurity?" I would fully agree that SIMULA should be near the top. After all, from what I remember SIMULA was used to validate some of the fundamental ideas driving the mobile phone systems. And as others have pointed out, SIMULA brought us OOP. However, that is all in the past.

    As the question was "Which ones have an impact on the world that belies their obscurity?" I would rather go for Forth as it is still used today in important devices and systems that shapes todays society at large. The point of printers has been brought up. I assume it is still used in some of the important telescope systems which was its first reason to be. I will also remind you that Forth was used in the Carrier-IQ system that created quite a stir a few years ago (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/23/034249/eff-reverse-engineers-carrier-iq).

    The fact that they both have had an impact on the whole mobile market just make it more clear to me that they both should be nominated to the top spot together.

  106. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is perl better than python, other than that perl regexes are much easier to use?
    To me python is perl replacement where I don't have to put $@% before every variable and that actually has a object system that I understand.

  107. Relay Ladder Logic by boley1 · · Score: 1

    Existed before digital computers. Still going strong - probably used somewhere along the supply chain for every product built in the last 75 years. Keeps the fresh water flowing in and *hit flowing out in the nation's infrastructure.

  108. Re:Avoid INTERCAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Less obscure is MATLAB

    MATLAB is the name of the platform. The programming language is called m-code.

  109. Definitely ASN1 by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

    The little-known (and much frustrating) language that defines the data interchange format for applications as widely-varied as X509 and LTE. Once you truly grok it (which is not intuitive at first) you appreciate the elegance and flexibility (plus zero-copy).

    1. Re:Definitely ASN1 by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

      I don't recall ASN.1 (or, DER) being a programming language. I recall it being a data description/notation language describing a set of encoding rules that compiled down into a compact binary format. It is the notation (well, the more simplified Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)) used to describe X.509 certificates and is still in use today but hidden through high level APIs.

      Writing encoder and decoders for it was something I had to do when implementing a secure communications program in the early/mid-1990's.

  110. x86-64 Assembly by godrik · · Score: 1

    Clearly the most obscure of all but yet the most useful is clearly assembly. Intel assembly is ridiculously obscure and difficult to undertand. We are pretty much all depending on it and runnign binary encoded in it.

    Yet we find it so obscure, we use compilers to generate it for us. (And a few actually write it directly when we must.)

    1. Re:x86-64 Assembly by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      I know things have gotten a bit out of hand with modern Intel CPUs, but 8086/8087 assembly was not hard to learn, and I quickly developed the ability to exploit the CISC instructions to implement very fast algorithms for things like graphics and variants of C std lib functions.

      My next exposure to .asm was the PIC microcontroller. Hideous!

      I quickly convinced myself to make AVR my "go to" uC. AVR assembler is a snap.

      Then I got into the C2000 series TI DSP/controllers. Back to hideous! But not because of severe limitations, rather that it's implemented with obscure syntax, and the documentation is little help. I've only needed a few tidbits of it in my apps which are mostly C, but I wouldn't mind doing some serious DSP coding with it. Of course, Analog Devices SHARC is very nice for assembly programming!

  111. Re:Avoid INTERCAL by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    SAS should be killed with fire. It is the most frustrating piece of garbage I have ever used. SAS is a garbage language, made by garbage people. And when I say that I don't mean to denigrate sanitation workers, for whom I have the utmost respect. I mean the employees of the SAS corporation are humanoids, perhaps sentient, literally made of garbage.

    I wept tears of nerd joy when I convinced my workplace to drop SAS and adopt R.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  112. Obligatory by quietwalker · · Score: 2

    English.

    In all seriousness: it's becoming difficult to communicate with all the acronyms, framework names being used as verbs, and corp-speak trickling into conversation, and this is with folks who are not necessarily expert communicators in the first place.

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one else thinks this is true too?

  113. C++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who says C++ isn't obscure hasn't tried to decipher a compiler error message that's 3000 characters long, when all it's trying to say is "Dood, missed a const when you used that template".

  114. Magik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone use Magik?

  115. If only new languages like Haskell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    could do numeric processing as cleanly as Fortran. There's something wrong with modern computer science trends that newer languages are LESS useful and expressive in some ways. If your new language can't do what Fortran did well, then you're failing to keep up with 1950

  116. Lisp, Scheme, Prolog, Fortran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lisp/Scheme for being dynamic, homoiconic (if badly), lambdas, having macros (though the Scheme version of hygienic macros suck - see Clojure for better). Scheme for continuations.

    Prolog for backtracking, logic programming, pattern matching, definite clause grammars.

    Fortran for being good for numeric processing - for demonstrating why the new fad of non-mutable data structures and recursion instead of loops is bullshit. That new languages can't do what Fortran does shows how stupid it is to throw away what we already know how to do.

  117. hate to be THAT guy but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    having an impact on the world does not belie their obscurity... they're still obscure.

  118. Re: 3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hip by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I'm still curious why people knock jquery so badly. I wrote a highly interactive application/wamp client using mostly jquery. The thing just worked on every browser I threw it at. No way that would have happened as easily without jq. I'm not into reinventing fixes to browser quirks.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  119. Latin by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

    SATISDICTVMEST

  120. Shocked No One Has Mentioned XSLT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a really odd language, but has its niche uses.

    There uses it.

  121. MUMPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aka M
    Been around for a long time and not many folks admit having used it :)

  122. Netlinx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's obscure and horrid to use, but if you've ever used touch panel controls for lighting and such - particularly in lecture theatres and the like - then there is a good chance that the interface glue was written in Netlinx.

  123. BRAINFUCK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also condensed PERL for a very close second, although some people disagree:

    http://articles.mongueurs.net/...

  124. The better Pascal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody remember Modula 2 ? Is that obscure enough ?

  125. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Python is not a hipster language.

    No, and more to the point it never was. Hipsters do use Python out of irony, though...

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  126. m4 automake and autoconf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obscure++

  127. Re: 3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Type characters in variable names aside, what about perl 's object system is hard to understand?

  128. Tcl/Tk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tons of legacy banking hardware still runs on it. Soon I'll be the only one left who knows how to program them, muahaha.

  129. save it for the CS class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The other day had to use a tool that some smart Alec coded in go. Took half a day to compile that garbage. I understand that it's fun to try to be different, but please don't use obscure languages for something you expect others to use!

  130. Mumps or Ada by brausch · · Score: 1

    Both used a lot in specialized areas; Mumps: Health care, some finance, Ada: military/aerospace.

    Both almost unheard of outside those areas.

    --
    "Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." - George Santayana
  131. SKILL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the world of integrated circuit design, Cadence SKILL is perhaps the most important language around. Obviously, noone outside of IC designers have heard of it, and yet it's nearly impossible to design any complex IC without writing something in it to make your design process more efficient, whether it be simulation automation, writing pcells or schematic/layout processing.

  132. ALGOL by bsharma · · Score: 1

    Because it showed that Programming Languages are possible. Programming in High Level languages was called, at the time, as "Automatic Programming". Just plain programming meant in Machine/Assembly/Macro languages. APL is another important language - helped define IBM 360 architecture formally (before there was Verilog or VHDL). PL/1 is important since quite a bit of Multics (parent of Unix) was written in it.

    1. Re:ALGOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I know for a fact that most of the programs of my bank run on IBM mainframe and are written in PL/1.

  133. My favorite failed .net language J# by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok so it was not my favorite but it was funny to see Microsoft put out a "language" that was suppose to be javaish but compiled to IL. It did so poorly, and i think also got into legal troubles, that it didnt last long

  134. Forth and Prolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still program in Forth and Prolog - each for different specialized reasons.

    Along with C, C++, Objective C, Perl, FORTRAN and a bunch of others.

    No one language fits every task - in spite of what Java programmers like to believe ;-) ;-)

  135. Data General CLI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CLI, as in Command Line Interpretter.

    The best scripting language ever.

  136. Icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ultimate string processing language, by the late Ralph Griswald of the Univ. of Arizona:
    https://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon/

    Python's generators were inspired from Icon.

  137. Julia is Hot! by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Mmm, built for supercomputing.
    http://julialang.org/

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  138. Can I nominate G-code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or perhaps APT. Maybe V+, VAL, or one of the other languages that are used to run and program so much of the manufacturing that makes your cars, devices, and other consumer crap. G-code is even used in 3D printers, for better buzzword compliance. There's a positively huge volume of it in use, we literally could not make half of what gets manufactured without it, and yet even a techie is unlikely to have ever programmed in it or consciously used it. Not only that, but it's been around without huge changes for a long time, and is pretty close to assembly in how brain numbing it is. It's just a forest of letters and mostly numbers. And don't you dare forget little things like parentheses, or decimal points. Also respect that the machines may randomly decide a maximum line length to use. YAY for random truncation and weird parsing glitches.

  139. Re:Avoid INTERCAL by snowgirl · · Score: 1

    Avoid INTERCAL job postings at all costs.

    So, you mean the fact that I wrote a c-intercal parser that used obscure opcodes to actually perform the interweave and or and xor isn't a good thing to put on my resume?

    Also, my favorite obscure language is LIRL, and that has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ME BEING THE AUTHOR... rather, it's an interesting concept of, "what if Perl raped LISP and LISP was forced by the republican state government to carry that baby to term?"

    The answer is: implied parentheses. To be clear, the language is absolutely context sensitive...

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  140. ADFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Custom languages seem to be common in the financial industry. For instance, I work for a company that has developed their own dataflow language. The language (called ADFL) is used for specifying calculations based on market data and transactions. The underlying data changes as transactions and new prices come in from exchanges and other systems, so the calculations must be real-time. The users view the results in a spreadsheet that updates as needed.

      I think this language qualifies as important because we have a large number of clients with deep pockets. Maybe a hundred banks and hedge funds? I honestly don't know the numbers, but in terms of money ADFL is definitely important.

  141. LabVIEW by irp · · Score: 1

    National Instruments LabVIEW - a graphical (but compiled) flow-oriented programming language - is also used for industrial automation/testing. Some of the components within your computer have most probably been tested or handled (before or during soldering/assembly) by a piece of hardware programmed in LabVIEW.

  142. ADFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Custom languages seem to be common in the financial industry. For instance, I work for a company that has developed their own dataflow language. The language (called ADFL) is used for specifying calculations based on market data and transactions. The underlying data changes as transactions and new prices come in from exchanges and other systems, so the calculations must be real-time. The users view the results in a spreadsheet that updates as needed.

      I think this language qualifies as important because we have a large number of clients with deep pockets who pay a lot of money for this software. Maybe a hundred banks and hedge funds? I honestly don't know the numbers, but in terms of money ADFL is definitely important.

  143. CLIST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On IBM's MVS and z/OS systems, CLIST was a scripting language for some smaller tasks. In most cases, REXX has replaced this. Often used in combination with ISPF (API for screen interaction and some file activities).

  144. Prolog by linuxator · · Score: 1

    Prolog. Most notable use-case is in IBM Watson.

    --
    * Origin: XBase BBS (2:490/4100) Well the good old days may not return and rocks might melt and sea may burn.
  145. Brainfuck is the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

  146. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You opinions may or may not be valid. I won't argue about any particular judgement.

    Your attitude sucks rocks. Your use of the word "hipster" as a pejorative is asinine. It demonstrates that you have the emotional maturity of an eight year old.

    To show just how puerile you are, I will demonstrate by substituting "cooties" for "hipster" in part of your post.

    For the avoidance of doubt, Go, Dart, Swift and Rust have top tier cooties, and a kitten masturbates god every time someone writes their first Hello World in any of them.

    Ruby is so obviously has cooties that not even cooties think it's cool anymore.

    Every language developed in the past 15 years which promises AMAZINGLY EASY PARALLEL PROGRAMMING OPPORTUNITIES has cooties.

    Since there are no standards on Slashdot it makes no difference when you post drivel like this. If you were to ever display this kind of behavior in a school or professional environment you would be lucky to last a week.

    Get a clue. Grow up. Otherwise you are a waste of space.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  147. CLIPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Special purpose language made by NASA for developing expert systems. I don't know how important it is or to what extent they use it nowadays.

  148. Forth by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

    Important mostly for embedded systems, and is as obscure as it gets.

  149. VATICAL - ThE! Apocalypse of Programming Languages by m.hataj · · Score: 1

    (german translation) https://translate.google.com/t...

  150. Re:Avoid INTERCAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Avoid INTERCAL job postings at all costs.

    According to thedailywtf.com, the same goes for MUMPS.

  151. IEC 61131-3 by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Virtually every factory and industrial plant in the world is filled with PLCs running software developed in a IEC 61131-3 language - Instruction List, Ladder Logic or Structured Text. None of these languages are pretty - IL looks like assembly code, LL looks like some weird Visio diagram with parameters and ST superficially resembles Pascal, but they're pretty much ubquitous in industry.

    1. Re: IEC 61131-3 by rioki · · Score: 1

      Exactly, I was going to propose SCL (Simatic Control Language), but you beat me to it. SCL is a pre standard dialect of IEC 61131-3, ST. In the case of PCS7 the CFC and SFC code is first translated to SCL and then to S7 byte code.

  152. Mainframe assembly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When cobol is insufficient mainframe assembly was used. Here there is a httpîto cics bridge written in systemZ assembly. It is chtuluesque

  153. make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When talking about important obscure languages, make comes to mind almost immediately. It's different enough from imperative programming paradigms that most people never bother to learn or even understand it and yet it's a more or less hidden part of practically every software project that deserves the name.

  154. FORTH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the first language I used on the Atari 800 - 6502 Assembly and then ValFORTH (an implementation of FORTH).

  155. Too high level. by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    The most important (or widespread) languages that nobody ever hears about are assembly and microcode. They are everywhere and are almost completely invisible. I would suggest that PIC assembly code is probably the one that we could least do without, today.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  156. I love LISP, but it's too much of a pain by Theovon · · Score: 1

    I love the IDEA of LISP. I also slightly prefer Scheme, which to me is a bit more of a pure functional language. But in practice, I find it too much of a pain to use. I'm not accustomed to rethinking things recursively, and I totally get lost in all of the parentheses.

    What many people don't realize about Common Lisp is that it's not really a functional language. It's functional-like. But there are side-effects and lots and lots of procedural constructs that seem out of place in a functional language. Consider the loop macro. It can loop over damn here anything efficiently, but it's not functional style. It's a domain-specific procedural language that you stick between parentheses within some Lisp code. Lisp has some features that make it supremely powerful. The code syntax and the data structure syntax are the SAME; that unification multiplies the power of the language in ways that are hard to describe. The macro facility is not equalled in any other language, because the macros are arbitrary Lisp code that is run at compile time that generates arbitrary Lisp code that then gets compiled. Lisp has also been around long enough that it's collected a huge number of libraries for just about anything, and the compilers are smart enough to produce some extremely efficient machine code.

    So I really really want to use Lisp. It's just too much of a headache to deal with actually writing the code.

    I've learned more languages than I can remember. C, Fortran, various BASICs, Ruby, Bash, C++, Java, JavaScript, HTML, CSS, SQL, Pascal, Ada, and so on. You know what my favorite language is? Verilog. What I enjoy most of all is designing chips. So I totally grok the theoretical value of languages like Lisp and Haskell, but I have the most fun designing circuits. That probably has a major influence on why I don't enjoy programming Lisp.

  157. PLC Programming Languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work in industrial process control, and we write our control applications for programmable automation controllers, specialized embedded machines with I/O assemblies that can interface with motor starters, drives, all kinds of instrumentation and analyzers, what have you.

    90% or more of your modern chemical processing,public infrastructure like water, wastewater and stormwater processing, manufacturing, transportation and safety systems are implemented using this class of controller, and they are not programmed in common, normal programming languages, but specialized control languages.

    There is a "standard" set of 5 languages that most PLCs support to one degree or another, ladder-logic, function block diagram, sequential function chart, structured text and instruction list. The first three are very different from what most programmers are used to, the latter two would be more recognizable to the average hacker. For added fun, the languages exist in many different dialects, so although you learn the basics of each language, the specifics differ somewhat between controller manufacturer.

    So they are very common in their specific domain, but outside of this industry most programmers may not even know they exist.

    1. Re:PLC Programming Languages by nvm_my_comment · · Score: 1

      ugh ladder-logic yes It had to be mentionned. At first I hated it because it was so utterly outdated (simulate relays when actually running on a silicon asic). But it very visual, can be simple if programmer is consistant. Simple I/O is the best for ladder but some tasks maybe very awkward to do.

  158. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by BVis · · Score: 1

    PHP was special-purpose in the days where it was that or cgi-perl, but I'm not sure what the fuck PHP is now. It still feels like BASIC but for web programmers.

    Now it's the language that drives more than 80% of the web. There's this thing called "Wordpress", you may have heard of it. The code is shit, to be sure, and it's much more popular than it is good, but it's still a thing. More modern frameworks (Zend Framework 1/2, both of which I've contributed to, Laravel, Symfony, etc) are much better. Maybe it isn't the most well designed or efficient language, but it lets you get shit done, which at the end of the day is the idea. Rapid development is important; hardware is cheap, developers are expensive.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  159. Something about whales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and Spock and transparent aluminium.

  160. Re:Avoid INTERCAL by ZahrGnosis · · Score: 1

    So, you mean the fact that I wrote a c-intercal parser that used obscure opcodes to actually perform the interweave and or and xor isn't a good thing to put on my resume?

    Eep, I have offended someone with actual skills! The horror.

    Putting it on your resume is one thing... heck, I'd hire someone who had legitimate INTERCAL experience on principle.

    Still, I ran a few job searches and couldn't find a match... not a single job looking for INTERCAL experience. What has the world come to? You may get more luck on masochism personals (Ashley Madison anyone?): "gwc, into whips, chains, and being forced to code complex algorithms in INTERCAL". Hmmm.

    Off to google LIRL now!

  161. ZZT-OOP was important to me. by dann0 · · Score: 1

    It taught me that I was certainly no game developer...

    --
    "The big question in our lives is how to be at the same time a hedonist and in a hurry" - Alain Ducasse (?)
  162. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You opinions may or may not be valid. I won't argue about any particular judgement.

    "I shall ignore the substance of your post on the relative worth of languages, and the problem in particular of rapid proliferation of languages..."

    Your attitude sucks rocks.

    "...and instead worry about irrelevant detail such as use of schoolyard insults like `sucks rocks'..."

    Your use of the word "hipster" as a pejorative is asinine.

    "...err I mean, worry about your use of schoolyard insults like `hipster'. Only an idiot would select a widely used pejorative which carries specific meaning in order to deliver concise, informal criticism."

    To show just how puerile you are, I will demonstrate by substituting "cooties" for "hipster" in part of your post.

    "To attempt to show without any logic whatever just how puerile you are, I will demonstrate by substituting "fuck" or "fuckity" for every single word in one sentence of your post:
    Fuck fuckity-fuck fuck fuck fuckity, fuck fuck fuckity-fuck fuck "fuck" fuckity "FUCK" fuck fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck.
    Since there are no standards on Slashdot it makes no difference when you post drivel like this."

    If you were to ever display this kind of behavior in a school or professional environment you would be lucky to last a week.

    I've been in software development for coming up to 17 years. Indeed, last month I had an opportunity to use the very sentence, "Please don't bring any of that hipster bullshit into this project." Since a job requires a little more rigour than posting on a messageboard - though you evidently have confused the two - I then spent a few minutes with my colleague explaining why choosing an immature if buzzword-compliant solution which is likely not to be supported in three years' time would be bad, no matter how many articles have been written about it recently. Thank goodness I was spoken to in a similar straight-talking but ultimately helpful way by my PhD supervisor 20 years ago, othewise I'd probably be full of hipster bullshit too.

    Get a clue. Grow up. Otherwise you are a waste of space.

    Get back to me in a couple of decades when you're less like I was.

  163. REALLY obscure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dunno how important it is, but it appears that spec got lost on the other posters too ;)
    TECO - a language that is demonstrably Turing complete. Oh, did I mention it is the mother of EMACS?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TECO_(text_editor)

  164. Fourth Generation Database Languages by PincushionMan · · Score: 1

    SQL is similarly not obscure in its area, but worth learning and you rarely see it in a list of general programming languages (because it isn't). But the commercial vendors all ship their SQL with strong variants that extend the language and do more common language functions like looping. I speak of PL/SQL, TSQL, and their ilk, which all have a touch of obscurity in the same way R does.

    You mentioned SQL and looping, but you missed out on the 4GL database variants: Aubit 4GL, IBM (Informix 4GL), Progress (OpenEdge Database), Aestiva Software (Aestiva Array). In some domains, 4GL is referred to as ABL. In the version I've used, they support a simple subset of SQL-89, and just enough SQL-92 to support JDBC/ODBC clients - although I've never seen it work. As for the differences, I hear that 4GL databases are record oriented, where SQL databases are set oriented. 4GL has features that SQL lacks, such as looping [FOR EACH table ...], accessing 2 (or more) records from a single table in one query [DEFINE BUFFER x FOR table], max of a field in a particular query [LAST], and conditional access of sub-queries table/buffers with IF AVAILABLE, accessing table children efficiently [EACH childtable OF table] each with independent WHERE syntax, and it is compiled. On the other hand, SQL is very good at aggregating/grouping, handling NULLs with COALESCE, queries not relying so heavily on indexes, and it is NOT compiled. If you want dynamic queries, with 4GL you'll have to build the file and compile it as it runs. One interesting thing about 4GL is their text fields can be overstuffed. Let's say you define your table, CHAR(30), and later you decide you need four more characters. No need to change anything - the extra data will be silently saved. It won't be displayed unless you override your DISPLAY statement, but the data will be there - up to 2k or 4k, implementation specific, as I recall.

    Most languages have the ability to create simple character based applications that can be accessed by Wyse and VTstyle terminals. Some environments have the ability to make .NET and Java based graphical applications, also.

    Overall though, it's a good idea to have a little 4GL under your belt. I've seen these languages being used in the newspaper industry, web publishing, gas stations, and even banks. I know I've gotten interviews based on just being proficient with 4GL / ABL database languages. It's not a bad thing to know a niche language.

  165. Re:Avoid INTERCAL by sfcat · · Score: 1

    SQL is similarly not obscure in its area, but worth learning and you rarely see it in a list of general programming languages (because it isn't). But the commercial vendors all ship their SQL with strong variants that extend the language and do more common language functions like looping. I speak of PL/SQL, TSQL, and their ilk, which all have a touch of obscurity in the same way R does.

    SQL is not in any way obscure and is in fact the exact opposite of obscure. More programmers know SQL than any other language, Java is second.

    You keep using that word....I do not think it means what you think it means....

    --
    "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
  166. Don't see it yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see it here so I vote for the most powerful 'math' language ever built... APL ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_%28programming_language%29 )

    Be sure to scroll down and see the code for the Game of Life.

  167. Re:Avoid INTERCAL by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

    SAS should be killed with fire. It is the most frustrating piece of garbage I have ever used. SAS is a garbage language, made by garbage people. And when I say that I don't mean to denigrate sanitation workers, for whom I have the utmost respect. I mean the employees of the SAS corporation are humanoids, perhaps sentient, literally made of garbage.

    I won't necessarily disagree there. I only used it for a couple months back in 2002 and at that because it was something we already had. It was decent; but it certainly had its limitations. The folks on the mailing lists weren't too happy about my embedding 6 or 7 layers of macros...but it worked; the main issue was being able to debug those layers if you needed to.

    I wept tears of nerd joy when I convinced my workplace to drop SAS and adopt R.

    Certainly agree there. R is far nicer.

    --
    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  168. Pick and RPL by prgrmr · · Score: 1

    There was a time when about 75% of all of the HMOs in America ran their company on an application written in Pick. And then the "traditional" insurance companies were allowed to buy all of the real HMOs and slowly turn them into complicated variants of 80/20 major-medical with a few tacked-on things mandated by state and federal law, and thus were able to throw away the Pick systems that they didn't understand, which ran very well a business model they didn't want to use, despite that model being much more profitable than the model they didn't want to let go of.

    There was also a lot of small and mid-scale manufacturers running Pick and an application written in RPL ("Real-time Processing Language), which was a stack-based langauge based on RPN. There were stacks numbered 0-9, and if you needed more, you had to either clear a stack, or pop off all of its contents into a file and then read it back when you needed it. The individual instructions were only somewhat less terse than assembly commands, because the program and interpreter had to load into memory to run, and every bit counted when you only had 125k in your DEC LSI system.

  169. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus christ, don't get your panties into a bunch because someone doesn't like your favorite language.

    Your use of the word "hipster" as a pejorative is asinine. It demonstrates that you have the emotional maturity of an eight year old.

    This is called "ad hominem." Thank you for demonstrating your immaturity level.

    For the record, I myself believe the word "hipster" is vastly overused. The AC post is not one of those cases, they specifically mentioned 3 categories of languages.

    The relevant issue is: is it accurate? does it apply?

    To berate the word, and in your own words:

    You opinions may or may not be valid. I won't argue about any particular judgement.

    is pure idiotic ad hominem drivel.

    Get a clue. Grow up. Otherwise you are a waste of space.

    Grow up yourself. Anonymous coward's post has more value than yours. Yours is meaningless drivel.

    Here is what anonymous coward's subject title was:

    3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hipster

    So, if you are to effectively and PROFESSIONALLY provide a grown-up response, you can argue:

    - those 3 categories are cherry-picked to fit preconceived outcomes; they are not good categories
    - languages AC named "hipster" actually fit in another category
    - "hipster" languages are necessary and beneficial and not all bad; not all languages have to be "pure" and "original" to be useful

    That is a useful post, a cohorent argument. Doesn't resort to ad hominem name calling. Actually addresses the issues raised.

    Your post is quintessential

    http://china-il.wikia.com/wiki/Frank_Smith

    100% feminine whining, all hissy fits and no substance. AC had a point and expressed it in a "non-professional" manner. Your post, has no point, except you don't like the word "hipster."

    It is just juvenile bitching. Equivalent of "Hitler was a bad dresser, that moustache was HIDEOUS."

    There is nothing wrong if you want to be a little girl, go for it. However, let the adults discuss things then. AC is a dick, but you are just impotent.

    You provided nothing of substance. AC gets a raise for effort, you simply don't get invited to the next meeting because you add nothing to the discussion.

  170. Re:Avoid INTERCAL by Ketorin · · Score: 1

    PowerShell is not like the shell languages. It tries, but fails subtly the moment one tries to use something not .NET based, or anything not specially wrapped into a cmdlet. Pretty much fails the original promise of shell languages, the ability to pipe together programs that don't necessarily know anything about ech others beforehand. I don't like the attitude of everyting's .NET, raw data is irrelevant. Say, try to manipulate SQL dump with binary data in it in the normal PowerShell way, it gets corrupted due carriage returns helpfully being added in. There are workaround though, just have to be super careful to not use THE PIPELINE for it. Anyway, that's what bite me recently. Sorry for having to take my eruption, o random stranger.

  171. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The main reason you are an idiot is you didn't argue "AC's use of the word hipster is wrong" you just dismissed the whole post because AC used that word.

    That makes you PC police. That makes you close-minded and childish. That makes you a moron.

    Substitute "hipster" with "new and shiny and overrated" and then maybe you can actually provide a useful rebuttal. Is that really so fucking hard?

    Instead, you just whine that because AC used the word "hipster" that invalidates their point. It is not relevant either way. There is an argument there, and you can agree or disagree. Instead, you just ad hominemmed the AC.

    Equivalent of "this science paper is wrong, because they used kilometers instead of miles." Not relevant either way.

    Either the data is accurate, and the conclusions are accurate, and the math and figures are accurate, or they are not.

    In real life, you don't get to just dismiss such a paper as "only children use kilometers" and ignore everything else. That is worse than unprofessional, that is intentional ignorance of the most arrogant and pretentious and pseudo-intellectual kind.

    AC can rewrite their post in friendlier language and still have it used "professionally" because there is an actual point there. You, on the other hand, have nothing to stand on, are just grasping at straws.

    I don't care if you don't like the word "hipster" that is perfectly fine. You are an idiot because you didn't address anything. If you had actually addressed anything, I could ignore your pathetic outburst and there would actually be some substance in your post to chew on.

  172. These Various Robot Programming Languages by Ketorin · · Score: 1

    IEC 61131 is the automation guys bread and butter, but apart from it, every machine smarter than a induction motor seems speaks it own variant of ugly QBASIC.

    Learn to grok those, get good, have a proof of it and there are plenty of jobs.

    I mean every guy can do simple "put an input in in these circumstances" like things in them, but dare to use the buggy and feature-depleted networking/gui/string manipulation utilities the programmers put in probably thinking no-one is going to use them anyway, you need some good wits, because the thing is literally a black box, sometimes you load the thing in with FTP or serial and the blinking lights at IO board is all you get to show that the thing is doing what you inted to. No debugger, though there will be bugs - hardware bugs! And bad, insufficient, badly translated documentation, no user community to get help from; maybe a manufacturer hotline which will tell "gee, I dunno" if you are lucky and privileged.

  173. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your post is equivalent of "that lady is a whore because she wore red"

    "only whores wear red"
    "what a skank!"

    Well, if that is your only argument, show us the data then.

    Where is your proof that posts that use the word "hipster" are all wrong and inaccurate? How many samples of such posts do you have? How were they gathered?

    You don't even dare venture there, because you have no such data.

    Instead, we are to believe your claims unquestioningly, a priori, and bow down to your self-proclaimed authority. Nope. Appeal to authority fallacy as well. I for one do not care for your self-elected authority.

    Put up or shut up?

    Are the languages AC named "new and shiny and overrated" or not? Let's see you make an actual case, instead of just name calling. There, I didn't use the word "hipster" so the almighty princess Required Snark is happy.

    I have faith you are not as retarded as you sound, you are just intellectually lazy and can't be bothered with "lesser folks." You are perhaps prejudiced and don't think it is worth your time. That is fine, but you should just say that then.

    "I am not going to even respond to your argument because you didn't present it in a professional manner, and I have seen too many such posts that had no substance"

    And then the AC can say "you are not paying me, so shut the fuck up with your freeloading whining"

    Guess what? If you want a professional environment, treat people like professionals. That includes paying people instead of expecting the universe to bow down to you for free.

    Actual professionals don't expect the universe to serve them for free.

  174. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about you show us all the pay stubs of all the times Required Snark paid AC to write "professional" posts?

    Instead you appear to be just another free-loading whiner who thinks that the universe owes them everything.

    Put up or shut up? Professionals pay people, they don't expect everyone to work for free. They don't invent magical contracts out of nothing and then whine that people broke them, when noone ever has actually seen such a contract let alone agreed to do your bidding from unspecified time A until unspecified time B, for free.

    You are just making up bullshit stories Required Snark. You have a talent of not letting reality stop you from writing your fiction. I give you kudos for writing great fiction that you pulled out of your ass.

  175. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Required Snark, "professionals" only are capable of "no true scotchmen" fallacies.

    If you are to be anything but a waste of space Required Snark, you have 2 options here:

    -- disprove AC's claims (an ad hominem attack does not do this)
    -- make more accurate claims than AC made (which you did not, ad hominem is all you did)

    Reasons Required Snark is an idiot:

    1) AC's post has a claim. Your post is just (2) ad hominem, (3) appeal to authority (you have not listed your credentials, it is assumed you are a professional because you say so), and (4) no true scotchman fallacy (professionals would never use the word "hipster", therefore AC is not a "professional" and his arguments are dismissed).

    4 more reasons why you, Required Snark, are an idiot.

    You are not worthy of the name. Actual snark requires more than just logical fallacies. It requires intelligence, and intelligent, if brief and subtle, dismissal of arguments on actual grounds. Not on invented, fallicious, species, arbitrary hubris and arrogance.

    You have no snark. Reason number 5 Required Snark is an idiot.

    Put up or shut up?

  176. Re:3 categories: general-purpose; specialist; hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not enough to say "AC is an idiot"

    You have to say "AC is an idiot BECAUSE xyz"

    You have to say "here is my claim" that is true.

    It is not enough to say "AC is unprofessional, so I won't even bother"

    IF AC's claims are so untrue, you should have no problem disproving them. Apparently AC is right on the money, and all you can do is FUD. Reason number 6 Required Snark is an idiot.

    FUD is not enough Required Snark. Oh me oh my, the horrible AC is unprofessional! Better not listen to AC!

    Jesus fucking christ Required Snark. That is not an argument. That is not snark. That is not a debate. That is not a reason. That is not science. That is not even religion.

    AC was childish turd wrapping around a juicy steak. You take off the childishness, and there is a nice juicy steak inside.

    Your post, was just a giant turd wrapping. You take off the turd wrapping around your post, and there is nothing there. All your post was, was a giant turd ad hominem. Nothing inside. No actual substance. No nuggets of wisdom.

    AC steak can be fed to a dog, the non-turd-contaminated portions can be isolated and useful. Your post, is all turd. There is nothing to salvage. There is nothing edible. There is nothing of nutritional value. Required Snark's post is 100% turd.

  177. APL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not just a language... It's a keyboard, too! But, seriously, it was my second language after Fortran, and I really enjoyed it.

  178. My vote: by Zanadou · · Score: 1

    My vote: Pali.

  179. K! by zeke7237 · · Score: 1

    and related Q .. www.kx.com .. a descendent of APL used pretty heavily in finance, usually by a small group of gnomes working in the basement

  180. Re:Avoid INTERCAL by ZahrGnosis · · Score: 1

    Thus the use of "not obscure" in the quoted description. Thank you for your support.

  181. real programmers use JOVIAL by DeuceTre · · Score: 1

    FYI: many of the world's most sophisticated weapons systems use JOVIAL, a language first spec'd in 1958 and required by the US DoD for all acquisitions for decades. This complex (600+ BNF predicates) language is still widely maintained with little or no commercial/community support world wide. Think GPS satellites, multiple fighter jets, SAM silos, etc. used by virtually every military in the world and you'll get it's importance. Obscure? Sure; the last spec was in 1983(?) and still only available printed on dead trees. I win - amirite?

  182. Eiffel is not obscure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it one of the least obscure.

  183. oops by rewindustry · · Score: 1

    i meant forth, of course.