I recently reviewed a college program that had a COBOL course. It’s not quite dead in academia.
Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 17, 2026, at 9:24 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > dead (no longer used in production) vs lost (media dors not exist even if > you wanted to revive it) > Bill > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 1:13 AM Fred Cisin via cctalk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> For a languageto get CALLED "dead" does not require any of those objective >> criteria. It gets called dead if somebody hasn't heard anything about it >> in a long time. >> >> Somebody who hasn't heard anything about mainframes in years thinks that >> mainframes are dead. >> Somebody who hasn't heard anything about COBOL in years thinks that >> COBOL is dead. >> >> Most stuff being called "dead" is not by objective criteria; it just >> hasn't been talked about much lately. Among THAT person's social circle. >> >> >> I agree with most of your objective criteria, except lack of recent >> update. While it is true that most active languages get frequent updates, >> but that isn't requisite for not being dead. >> Should we say that a person is dead if they haven't been to the doctor in >> 10 (25, 50) years? It would call for a wellness check, but hardly an >> assumption of demise. >> Recently some AI generated facebook post recounted Cliff Stoll's famous >> tracking down of intruders. The same article said that Cliff died in May >> 2024. Cliff says that the news of his death is slightly exaggerated. >> >> -- >> Grumpy Ol' Fred [email protected] >> >>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Mike Katz via cctalk wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm sure there are more "dead" computer languages than there are >>> living ones. >>> >>> However, what is the definition of a dead computer language. Here >>> are a few potential definitions (choose one or more or add your own): >>> >>> * If the language is not running, as an interpreter or compiler, on >>> any currently manufactured computer. Running on antique >>> computers >>> or simulators doesn't count. >>> * If no one is being paid to program in that language or maintain >>> code >>> in that language. >>> * If the standards for the language have not been updated in more >>> than >>> 10 (25, 50) years. >>> * If the language is no longer being used in a production/commercial >>> environment. >>> * If the language is only being used in the >>> hobbyist/historian/antique/simulation environments. >>> >>> Here is an example question: There is an in production add on to an >>> antique computer written and being supported in Forth. The Forth >>> interpreter/compiler is running on a modern ARM based micro. Even >>> though the target of the product is an antique computer since it is >>> using a current technology micro with a supported forth, I would say >>> that Forth is not a dead language. >>> >>> Here is a list of languages from my past, how many of them are >>> officially dead by one or more of the above definitions? >>> >>> APL >>> Forth >>> Lisp >>> Algol >>> Dibol >>> Focal >>> Occam >>> Prolog >>> Watfor & Watfive >>> Ratfor >>> Flap >>> Ralf >>> Teco (editor and macro language) >>> Pilot >>> DB2 >>> Foxbase >>> Any of the Hp Calculator languages (RPL, HP-41 User code) >>> I'm sure their are dead dialects of BASIC but BASIC is currently >>> supported as Visual Basic and Dartmouth Basic. >>> >>> Please update this list as to whether any of these languages are dead >>> (by the current definition above) or alive. Also, please add new >>> definitions and languages that are dead or nearly dead. >>> >>> Note: Dead dialects of a living language don't count.
