infographic sent by CTO at my work, guaranteed to piss off lispers

[der_gavio_fhurer]

http://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages-infographic/

[Jeff Barnett]

der_gavio_fhurer wrote, On 6/19/2013 12:00 PM:
> http://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages-infographic/
>
Doesn't even mention ALGOL. A rather useless historical record in my
opinion.

Jeff Barnett

[Marco Antoniotti]

Yep. But it is full of Whitespace code. :)

MA

[Paul Rubin]

Jeff Barnett <jbb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> http://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages-infographic/
> Doesn't even mention ALGOL. A rather useless historical record in my
> opinion.

I prefer this work of, er, historical scholarship:

http://www.cvaieee.org/html/humor/programming_history.html

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Or try this diagram, which is more complete:
http://www.levenez.com/lang/
(move over it to see the magnified section).

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
You know you've been lisping too long when you see a recent picture of George
Lucas and think "Wait, I thought John McCarthy was dead!" -- Dalek_Baldwin

[Marco Antoniotti]

I beg to differ from your not-so-mildly sarcastic overtone. The erudition exuding form the page is unsurpassed.

Cheers
--
MA

[Barry Margolin]

In article <efcceb40-479e-4d3f...@googlegroups.com>,

The nice thing is that it's equal-opportunity -- no language was left
unmocked.

--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[Jeff Barnett]

Barry Margolin wrote, On 6/22/2013 8:32 AM:
> In article <efcceb40-479e-4d3f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Marco Antoniotti <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, June 21, 2013 8:33:22 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote:
>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb...@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages
>>>>> -infographic/
>>>> Doesn't even mention ALGOL. A rather useless historical record in my
>>>> opinion.
>>>
>>> I prefer this work of, er, historical scholarship:
>>>
>>> http://www.cvaieee.org/html/humor/programming_history.html
>>
>> I beg to differ from your not-so-mildly sarcastic overtone. The erudition
>> exuding form the page is unsurpassed.
>
> The nice thing is that it's equal-opportunity -- no language was left
> unmocked.
>

Ahem, this one doesn't mention ALGOL either. Whether these attempts are
funny or serious, they seem to overlook the Language that was most
influenced subsequent developments. Any theory why the omission?

Jeff Barnett

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

And PL/1.

There have been invented and named more programming languages than
natural languages.

[Jeff Barnett]

Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote, On 6/22/2013 3:34 PM:
> Jeff Barnett <jbb...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Barry Margolin wrote, On 6/22/2013 8:32 AM:
>>> In article <efcceb40-479e-4d3f...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Marco Antoniotti <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, June 21, 2013 8:33:22 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote:
>>>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb...@comcast.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages
>>>>>>> -infographic/
>>>>>> Doesn't even mention ALGOL. A rather useless historical record in my
>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer this work of, er, historical scholarship:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cvaieee.org/html/humor/programming_history.html
>>>>
>>>> I beg to differ from your not-so-mildly sarcastic overtone. The erudition
>>>> exuding form the page is unsurpassed.
>>>
>>> The nice thing is that it's equal-opportunity -- no language was left
>>> unmocked.
>>>
>> Ahem, this one doesn't mention ALGOL either. Whether these attempts
>> are funny or serious, they seem to overlook the Language that was most
>> influenced subsequent developments. Any theory why the omission?
>
> And PL/1.
>
> There have been invented and named more programming languages than
> natural languages.
>

PL/1 was not an influential language they it got a fair bit of use. The
development of ALGOL was the love child of Alan Perlis; then at CMU. It
was the first language that had a real effort to define its semantics,
i.e., what value should be produced by code. ALGOL was mentioned
throughout the initial discussions about Lisp 2 in the 1960s. There was
a move at that time to adopt some of the syntax as well as new semantics
in Lisp based on the/a ALGOL models. The ALGOL pass-by-name, for
example, was a clear indication that the Lisp community hadn't paid
enough attention to scope and closures. McCarthy, Minsky, Simon, and
Newell were all admirers of Perlis. I was shipped to CMU for a few days
to visit him and compare notes on his ideas vs what we were doing for
Lisp. A funny way to note the influence of ALGOL is to consider JOVIAL:
Jule's Own Version Of the International Algorithm Language. So "IAL" was
a pointer at ALGOL. I just saying that any program language history that
doesn't mention ALGOL isn't a history at all.

[der_gavio_fhurer]

>
> Doesn't even mention ALGOL. A rather useless historical record in my
>
> opinion.
>
>
>
> Jeff Barnett

I agree.
ML?
LISP?
PROLOG?
FORTH?
SCHEME?