On Wed, 17 Jun 2026, Doug Jackson wrote:
I cannot help but find this discussion of "dead languages" fascinating,
particularly in the context of a Classic Computer mailing list.
A language is not dead simply because somebody has not heard of it. Nor is
it dead because the latest Python, JavaScript, or Ruby programmer has never
encountered it. By that measure, half of computing history would vanish
every few years.
There is an enormous distinction between actually being dead, VS being
CALLED "dead" by those who are simply ignorant of it.
THAT is what I was saying the message that you quoted.
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 at 15:13, 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]
