Today, i took sometime to list some major or talked-about langs that
arose in recent years.

Here's the result:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/new_langs.html

Plain text version follows.

-------------------------------------
There is a proliferation of computer languages today like never
before. In this page, i list some of them.

In the following, i try to list some of the langs that are created
after 2000, or become very active after 2000.

* Erlang↗. Functional, concurrent.
* Haskell↗ Oldish, functional.
* Mercury↗. Logic, functional.
* Q↗. Functional lang, based on term rewriting. To be replaced by
“Pure” http://pure-lang.sourceforge.net/.

ML Family:

I can't say that I see any particular point to the essay. But I did
want to point out that Oz should not be considered part of the ML
family. Aside from not being statically typed - a very central tenet
to ML, Oz is much more part of the Logic family of languages (Mercury,
Prolog, etc...).

On Jul 18, 12:17 pm, "xah...@gmail.com" gmail.com> wrote:

Chris Rathman gmail.com> wrote:

You must be new here. There never is any particular point to Xah Lee's
rantings except to cross-post borderline topics to borderline relevant
NGs and then lay back and enjoy the ensuing slaughter.

PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

jue

J

On Jul 18, 1:17 pm, "xah...@gmail.com" gmail.com> wrote:

You missed PowerShell and ActionScript.

Languages are just tools. It may have escaped your notice, but it's a
remarkable fact that no two languages are alike! It's not the language
that we should focus on, but the task at hand. Personally, I feel that
we can gain a lot more by studying the different kinds of problems we
can solve by computing and relate the language to the job, rather than
learning a language and then trying to find a fit with a particular
class of problems.

On 2008-07-22, szr szromanMO.comVE> wrote:

Grant Edwards wrote:

over the past 5 years there are some negative remarks on me or my
posts. I have almost never responded to any of them. Here i want to
clarify a few things.

• I seldomly write off-topic posts. For example, any argument about
netiquette, i consider off-topic, including defense such as what i'm
doing now. But in recent years i gradually relaxed my stringent self-
imposed rules in my posting habit.
(See “Aloofness vs Approable”
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/aloof_vs_approachable.html )

• many says i'm posting off topic posts. In recent years they start to
say i'm posting tangentially relevant posts. That's not correct. In
fact, there are huge number of blatantly off-topics posts by regulars
that spawn off from threads, happens regularly. The topics vary
anywhere from discussing politics, law, licenses, free speech, math
education, yapping on happenings of celebrity programers, and
including rampant flamewars and accusations among themselves.
(see ★ “Old School Netiquette”
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/os_netiquette.html
)

xahlee@gmail.com wrote:

There is a difference. Many of your claimant off-topic posts are buried
in the end of threads, not at the explicit start of a thread. In those
cases, I personally feel that not moving to another forum is trumped by
the sake of continuity. Even then, it should be indicated as such by OT:
in the subject, but it gets easy to forget it. Starting a thread that is
OT does not have such continuity considerations, though.

And realize that something is not on-topic merely because it's relevant
to Java programmers. You can see people's responses to one of Roedy's
threads as an example.