17 Jun
2026
17 Jun
'26
1:25 a.m.
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.