>lisp (scheme in particular)
>haskell
>forth
>sh (bash, but whatever)
>c
Literally all you need or could ever want.
I'm willing to include Smalltalk, but you're gonna have to give some pretty good arguments.
Pascal might also be a valid alternative to C.
\TeX and \METAFONT are of course givens.
Fight me.
Lisp (scheme in particular)
Jonathan Powell
Connor Ward
perl, OP
Adam King
no
Jaxson Brown
Think of how not terrible and unmanageable everything might be if these were all that were available and people were forced to learn how to use them properly.
Anthony Peterson
Scheme should replace sh/bash, it's perfect for the task.
Pascal should completely replace C.
Pic related
Liam Morris
Everything can be done with Scheme (which itself is easily implementable in FORTH) but it doesn't mean other things don't have a place or shouldn't be used. They should remain on the list if only for legacy reasons.. Bash and C aren't going anywhere.
Scheme and Pascal should for sure be utilized more instead though.
I really wish scsh wasn't bitrotted to hell...
Colton Baker
Ehhh I say if we are imagining such scenerios we should drop c and she'll scripting altogether, and have some form of lisp that is efficient for systems programming
Colton Torres
No one wants to fight for Smalltalk huh?
Ryder Long
Ryder Cruz
scheme and haskell are boh functional, isn't that a lot of overlap?
Thomas Green
pascal is better than c
prove me wrong fagets
Jaxson Ward
see If you wanted to just have one language to effectively and easily do everything, the obvious choice is Scheme.
But just because something can be done shouldn't exclude having something else perhaps more explicitly geared for whatever.
How can something so blatantly correct be proven wrong?
Charles Hall
I think I understand but to me I feels like branching out farther and farther.
I am a simple guy. Unlike most people here it takes me a more than decent amount of time to learn a completely new language or concept. So I really like to have 2-3 things I am decent add that cover as much ground as possible.
Noah Barnes
If you ever want to use some real life libraries, you'd also need basic C++.
And some scripting language. Perl has a wealth of libraries. Kids these days use Python, however.
Also Python if you're looking for a cheap Matlab replacement. (NumPy, SciPy)
Nathan King
Scheme and Haskell's idea of functional are pretty far apart.
Haskell is lazy and pure with a powerful type system. Scheme is strictly, doesn't stop you mutating (though it discourages it) and has no type system.
Aiden Flores
Ok, but remove C and sh.
Don't pollute valid languages with Unix braindamage.
Camden Stewart
Even PL/I was better.
C, like many other popular things, did not get there because of technical merit.
Michael Wood
We're living in a new millennium now, gramps.
Get with the times.
Nicholas Carter
>sh (bash, but whatever)
Is actually a shitty scripting dialect. No, I get that the shell and cli utilities are powerful. And you can do a lot with all these programs.
But bash has an actually retarded "programming language" barely better than basic. The error handling is crap, the function syntax is crap, almost everything is half-assed and has problems that were never fixed.
> lisp (scheme in particular)
> forth
Okay, 60/40 years and what has it been successfully used for? There's barely a few handfuls of useful software. These are not good languages.
I'm not saying every more used language is great -pretty much all of them should be improved-, but at least they've been actually useful.
Cameron Gutierrez
It had many advantages, most of which were very relevant to programming typical GUI applications more quickly. C still isn't a great language for that even now.
But Pascal also never had terribly tight control over the machine it was running on.
Justin Sanchez
>But Pascal also never had terribly tight control over the machine it was running on.
What additional control does C provide?