21 Jun
2026
21 Jun
'26
1:12 a.m.
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):
I did see a mention in later comments of my favourite "dead" language;
BCPL but it fails the definitions. (I may be biased though!)
* 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.
It is running. And brand new implementations on modern systems - The
RP2350, Raspberry Pi, (both in 'bare metal' formats), and Linux system,
for example.
* If no one is being paid to program in that language
or maintain code
in that language.
If only I could earn writing code in it..
* If the standards for the language have not been
updated in more than
10 (25, 50) years.
The standards (if you can call it that) have been undated relatively
recently (floating point was added and some new constructs similar to ++)
And the author is still actively working on it (or was, the last time I
exchanged email)
* If the language is no longer being used in a
production/commercial
environment.
It's unlikely it's being used in a commercial/production environment now
(but I suspect 'now' is again relative in terms of the near 60 year
language life span)
* If the language is only being used in the
hobbyist/historian/antique/simulation environments.
And it definitely is being used in the hobbyist environment - my me. (and
possibly the OPC CPU people) Curiously I have had a few (count fingers on
one hand) people interested in running it on their systems...
So.. BCPL is not dead, just resting.
A very quick demo of it working on a modern system:
https://youtube.com/shorts/-__erKyNtLA
Gordon