[cctalk] Re: What constitutes a dead computer language

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 cisin(a)xenosoft.com On Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Mike Katz via cctalk wrote: > > I'm sure there are more "dead" computer languages than there are > living ones. > > However,  what is the definition of a dead computer language.  Here > are a few potential definitions (choose one or more or add your own): > > * If the language is not running, as an interpreter or compiler, on > any currently manufactured computer.  Running on antique > computers > or simulators doesn't count. > * If no one is being paid to program in that language or maintain > code > in that language. > * If the standards for the language have not been updated in more > than > 10 (25, 50)  years. > * If the language is no longer being used in a production/commercial > environment. > * If the language is only being used in the > hobbyist/historian/antique/simulation environments. > > Here is an example question:  There is an in production add on to an > antique computer written and being supported in Forth.  The Forth > interpreter/compiler is running on a modern ARM based micro.  Even > though the target of the product is an antique computer since it is > using a current technology micro with a supported forth, I would say > that Forth is not a dead language. > > Here is a list of languages from my past, how many of them are > officially dead by one or more of the above definitions? > > APL > Forth > Lisp > Algol > Dibol > Focal > Occam > Prolog > Watfor & Watfive > Ratfor > Flap > Ralf > Teco (editor and macro language) > Pilot > DB2 > Foxbase > Any of the Hp Calculator languages (RPL, HP-41 User code) > I'm sure their are dead dialects of BASIC but BASIC is currently > supported as Visual Basic and Dartmouth Basic. > > Please update this list as to whether any of these languages are dead > (by the current definition above) or alive.  Also, please add new > definitions and languages that are dead or nearly dead. > > Note:  Dead dialects of a living language don't count.