Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

>The list seems rather arbitrary

As opposed to what list? An exhaustive one? The quality he asks of the languages in the list is "interesting", which is by definition rather arbitrary itself.

View on HN

I think it would be more useful if there was some criteria behind the list. Maybe there are, but I do not see what. It doesn't have to be exhaustive, there might be criteria like "not well known" or "representative of a certain idea".

This is a good (albeit exhaustive) list too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages_...

A more interesting list might be an <ol> with the first few languages to learn to cover the most good concepts.

But such a list would be a lot more decisive.

This is essentially the premise of the book Seven Languages in Seven Weeks.

And if it was an objective measure, there would never be a least interesting language, because if there were, then it would be interesting for that reason.

Elixir is Ruby like wrapper to a prolog based syntax to do actor based programming. It's more of a mess trying to move Erlang's syntax forward than interesting, but ok.

Ponylang is listed as "--" instead of "concurrency as a primitive type".

I'm not sure I can trust anything on the list, so it doesn't motivate me to investigate further. YMMV

I don't really care if it's a "list I trust".

I do care for a set of links to languages I've not seen yet, where I can click and check their websites -- and this provides it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com