17 Jun
2026
17 Jun
'26
1:29 a.m.
I pose the question : Is a vibe coder / java jiver / python wrangler / ... who is ignorant
of programming history "alive" (or an android) ?
B
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Jackson via cctalk [mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: 17 June 2026 08:25
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Cc: Doug Jackson <doug(a)doughq.com>
Subject: [cctalk] Re: What constitutes a dead computer language
I cannot help but find this discussion of "dead languages" fascinating,
particularly in the context of a Classic Computer mailing list.
A language is not dead simply because somebody has not heard of it. Nor is it dead because
the latest Python, JavaScript, or Ruby programmer has never encountered it. By that
measure, half of computing history would vanish every few years.
The whole reason groups like this exist is because there are still people actively using,
studying, teaching, repairing, and preserving these technologies. Around the world there
are enthusiasts rebuilding Apollo guidance computer rope memory, reproducing DSKYs,
restoring S100 and STD bus systems, maintaining FORTH environments, repairing PDPs, and
keeping countless other pieces of computing history operational. Many of these systems are
not museum exhibits. They are running, being developed, and teaching new generations how
computing worked before abstraction layers hid all the interesting parts.
Perhaps a better definition of a dead language is one for which there is nobody left who
can read it, write it, teach it, or care about it. By that standard, many of the languages
being discussed here are very much alive.
They may not be fashionable, they may not appear in job advertisements, and they may not
be taught at university, but they are still being used by communities that value them.
If anything, the existence of this mailing list is evidence against the idea that these
languages are dead. We are quite literally the people keeping the knowledge alive and
passing it on to those who come after us.
Dead? Maybe. Mostly dead? Certainly not.
Kindest regards,
Doug Jackson
em: doug(a)doughq.com
ph: 0414 986878
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 at 15:13, Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
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.