[cctalk] Re: What constitutes a dead computer language

On Jun 17, 2026, at 9:24 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: dead (no longer used in production) vs lost (media dors not exist even if you wanted to revive it) Bill > On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 1:13 AM 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.