News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:An opinionated history of programming languages by UncleOxidant on Saturday October 03, 2020 @04:50PM (#24674575)
Maybe my color perception is off, but it looks like Python is considered a root language with no significant predecessors. Which doesn't seem correct - Python wasn't so novel that it introduced new programming paradigms.

Also, no asterisk (modern, mature compiler & runtime) for OCaml?

Re:An opinionated history of programming languages by kens on Saturday October 03, 2020 @06:08PM (#24675048)
> Maybe my color perception is off

It's interesting to see this article on the front page at the same time as the Color Blindness article [1] discussing the difficulty of distinguishing tiny color spots. I'm not color blind, but I needed to zoom in on the first figure to see the difference between the red dot and the other red dot. Not to mention the black dot, the dark green dot that looks black at a distance, and the black dot that's actually an asterisk. Now I understand why these are so hard to distinguish.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24672463

Re:An opinionated history of programming languages by smitty1e on Saturday October 03, 2020 @04:53PM (#24674589)
The arrows showed descent from C and Perl.
Re:An opinionated history of programming languages by UncleOxidant on Saturday October 03, 2020 @05:25PM (#24674781)
But the color (black) in the legend indicates no significant predecessors.
Re:An opinionated history of programming languages by macintux on Saturday October 03, 2020 @05:31PM (#24674809)
That only applies to the bolded languages. A bit confusing.
Re:An opinionated history of programming languages by ncmncm on Saturday October 03, 2020 @11:17PM (#24676281)
Listening to OCaml users, you would never get any impression that its toolchain was mature.