Are modern programming languages more complex than old ones from the 70s and 80s?

Are modern programming languages more complex than old ones from the 70s and 80s?

Attached: 1536096388423.jpg (247x250, 6K)

Other urls found in this thread:

cs.cmu.edu/~fp/courses/15816-f16/schedule.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

if by complex you mean super high level then yes.

No, Lisp is the most powerful programming language and was invented in the 50's.

(I (agree that lisp) is perfect)

no, because the language is almost irrelevant the assembler and compiler are the most relevant part and

Yes because they're more abstract
I find it easier to write C than to write shit like JavaScript or jQuery because C is basically just loops, conditions, and math operations whereas modern languages have like a gazillion different functions
If I want something modern I use Python because it also has a million functions but it's also quick to write and results in very short code whereas in JS you need a million lines to do anything

This.

tfw you accidentally write your own compare function when the language already has it built in.

Not really, no. By the 1970s you already had high level type systems like ML, Hindley-Milner type inference, garbage collection, theorem proving/formal verification systems and the like. Object-oriented programming also began in the 1970s, seminal books on parallelism and concurrency were published (the Actor model was 1973), lazy evaluation strategies for lambda calculus (what Haskell does) were first published in 1971.

Some newish things would be like SSA form (popular with C/C++ compilers as part of optimization) in the 1980s and then things that happened toward the end of the 90s with work on dependent type systems and things like typeclasses.

Computer science moves pretty slow and a lot of things popularized today were from decades ago. Some of these things were too expensive to do on modest hardware back in the day. I'd say the most complexity in modern languages are all related to optimization and not the abstractions and features.

>Computer science moves pretty slow
no it's more like fields have a limited amount of information to discover and we've discovered most of it already

> "Everything that can be invented has been invented."
t. patent office

You didn't understand what I said
For new things to be discovered the field has to be expanded
Like if quantum computing became a thing for example, there'd be new shit to discover
But we've discovered most things about classical computing already

No, I perfectly understood what you said. You just have no basis to make that claim, nor does it refute what I said about things moving slow. The low-hanging fruit has been done, but you have no evidence to back your assertion that most of the work has already been done. Do you have some sort of secret roadmap to know how far along this relatively new field is? No, you don't.

I'm just not a brainlet like you are apparently

> can't back shit up
> brainlet
Nice.

Observe the history of technology and notice whenever a new technology is invented it's accompanied by alot of rapid development and innovation followed by stagnation unless something comes along later to expand the field. We're at that point with computing

> still can't back 'most' has been done
Keep trying, guy.

You can't prove something doesn't exist retard, all you can do is draw a parallel from this technology to all other technology

Practice usually trails research by about 2 or 3 decades. Most of the new ideas in 'modern' PLs are from the late 80's / early 90's
cs.cmu.edu/~fp/courses/15816-f16/schedule.html

No. No popular modern language is meaningfully more complex than APL.

>quantum computing
No. Just no. There is no "quantum" anything, this isn't poorly understood near magic effects of some mythical theoretical particle.

>But we've discovered most things about classical computing already
Name one thing that is impossible to do with a classical computer that you can do with a quantum one.