i've seen a lot of silly polls lately, why not this question:

what is the absolute lamest, most ridiculous, unapologetically stupid excuse for a language you've ever seen and/or had to use for programming?

for me, if i remember right, it was something called prolog or prologue. not that the syntax was that bad, but it just seemed like waaaay to pretentious of a language at the time. it was presented to me in a psychology course at CMU of all things, a sort of experiment to determine how easy various languages were to learn. "prolog" was based completely in "rules", where you were supposed to teach it rules like "the sky is blue" and "killing is bad" and it would eventually learn the meaning of life or something like that.

admirable, but somewhat hokey, don'tcha think????

hope y'all had a good turkey day!

jase

i gotta say it was Turing. it was very limited but easy to learn. the good games made in this language could hardly run as they were too fast for the compiler. insanely stupid language.
Qin

I have to disagree about Turing. Sure, it's slow, and fairly limited, but for a learning language, which is what it was designed for, it is extremely good.

My vote for the worst language of all time has to be Visual Basic. I simply can't stand it!

Actually, I like Prolog a lot.
Granted, this is not a language for the faints of heart, and it's not geared towards game programming either, but when it's used for stuff it's good at (expert systems), it really rocks.
Its main point is to determine if a fact can be demonstrated to be true from a set of rules and facts. A programming language is made to instruct a machine to do stuff. Some stuff is just best expressed in a way (games in C++ ?) and others in another way. Prolog just offers a good way to express deduction logic to a machine.
Well, I stop there....
Hmmm, now to the original question.
Hmmm .... not easy. I'd like to vote for VB too, but ....
After all, maybe one of the stupid languages I created to describe data for my game...
Nah.
VB
(gratuitous nastiness)

I would say it is a tie between
visual basic (slow as hell)
pascal (just plain useless)
and definitely java (rip off of C)

gwozdzt, why such a downer of VB? It's fine if you want simple games or 'resource management' type games with minimal graphics. If you're looking for a language for some intense graphics work though it does fall down badly. It wasn't designed to do that, it's geared toward 'windowy' business apps.

I don't think there are too many lame languages, it's down to what you want to do with it. I'd say programming a graphics game in COBOL would be like receiving an invitation to the hall of lameness though.

There are lots of obscure or specialist langauges which would be harder to have fun with. There was an experimental language called brainf**k (yes, naughty!) done to demonstrate some intepreter stuff, it's code read like this:

>+++++++++[<+++++++++++>-]<[>[-]>[-]<<[>+>+<<-]>>[<<+>>-]>>>[-]<<<+++++++++<[>>>+<<[>+>[-]<<-]>[<+>-]>[<<++++++++++>>>+<-]<<-<-]+++++++++>[<->-]>>+>[<[-]<<+>>>-]>[-]+<<[>+>-<<-]<<<[>>+>+<<<-]>>>[<<<+>>>-]>[<+>-]<<-[>[-]<[-]]>>+<[>[-]<-]<+++

Freaky!

http://www.catseye.mb.ca/esoteric/bf/

ADA! ADA!

damn language is evviiilll

Actually, I know at least two people who program games in pascal. I say that C is way better, but they didn't ask for my opinion . Here's a game ( http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Bunker/9921/realkeen.htm ) made in pascal. Arguably it's good (so says the author), if it only went at a reasonable speed I'd agree with him. Here's my chip for pascal sucking... (or maybe it's the programmer... I dunno... he got AI in there, so I guess that says something...)

Hmm, I liked pascal, I made some cool games with it. I've also seen some cool programs, like Cyberdogs.
Worst Programming Language that I've ever used has to be this crazy-stupid game making script I once downloaded where the syntax was something like
1: let a, 1
2: let a, a + 1
3: prn a
4: let b, key
5: ifn b, 1
6: got 2
or something insane like that just to make a program that looped and printed an incrementing value.
This person claimed it was ideal for making games with!

That looks like a form of BASIC... am I wrong?

I cant believe you knocked Java! I personally
think that java is great, its almost a form of c, its so similar, and its as portable as a pen (like my proverb- made it up myself:o))
I would have to agree that Cobol is painfully pedantic and pissweak.

I'd say QBasic. Now, I know there are many people who still program in Qbasic, and can make awesome games, but I'm not talking about the power of the language. I'm talking about the syntax.
Now, this might not have been a problem for everyone, but Qbasic made it a bit harder to get into C. The way Qbasic gets you thinking is almost like "start-to-finish" code (with the exceptions of the functions, but still..). After using Qbasic for a couple of years (which was probably a mistake), when I tried to move to C the concepts of structures, more advance functions, and the such were a bit more difficult to grasp at first.
Yes, Qbasic may have only slowed me down by maybe a week or so of learning, but that was a long week.
Well, I've tried to prove my point as well as possible, but still, some (or many) will probably disagree with me.

BASIC is the worst "real" language I've ever used, simply because I haven't used very many. As far as QBasic teaching bad habits, I don't really think it does. (With the exception of allowing undefined variables and case insensitivity.) QBasic does have structures, functions, etc. The trouble is that many novice programmers pick up QBasic and learn it on their own without using it "properly". The thing hardest to get used to when going from Basic to C is pointers (and thus strings) and grasping the reality that you actually don't have a hand tied behind your back.
--
Matthew Leverton - matthew.leverton@interclay.com

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant when I said the conversion for me was hard. I didn't actually 'pick up' Qbasic until 1997, and by then there weren't any learn Qbasic workshops (actually, I don't know if there ever were...), and the few books left on Qbasic were usually horrible. One book had almost an error a page (in the text and code). I ended up just learning Qbasic on the internet. Another problem here was that the only tutorials (but there were many) that were there were written by other Qbasic programmers. That might not sound bad at first, but then you realize (as you said), that most of them didn't even know about structures in Qbasic. I mean, I didn't even know of structures in Qbasic until you just said so!

Luckily, C++ (which I'm learning now) actually has many professional websites with professionally written tutorials.

Still, Qbasic is the worst to me, since I started with it and formed a bunch of bad programming habits...

My choice would be RPG. Horribly arcane mess from IBM. And it's still being used!!! shudder

There was only one good feature with basic and I think it was only for visual basic.
The 'with' keyword.
You could say
with object
datamember = FALSE
end with
That way it was like a mini member function and you did not have to keep typing object.datamember you could just access them.
C needs something like that. Other than that, basic isn't worth my time.

I would say Java. I don't understand the idea to make a languge so close to the C. And I know nothing about the C# but, I'm sure that's a joke too! I I'm not wrong, it's a langugage that has the same purpose than Java, so, java is like C and C# is like what?

mfarrell,

C++ has namespaces, that's similar to (albeit not quite the same as) what you're talking about.

dschlyder,

i've never heard of RPG (other than 'role playing game'), i'll have to ask around here at IBM if anyone's still using it so i can have a look-see. is that the same thing as PL/X? if so, then i agree it's a pretty archaic language. i almost blew coffee out of my nose when i was being trained and the teacher had the audacity to say that PL/X would have been as popular as 'C' if IBM didn't keep it proprietary. i seriously thought she was making a joke and laughed way too loud.

let's just say my first week here was a bit rough.

ciao for now,

jase

I thought I'd defend ol' basic a bit here, I think this forum is biased because it demands graphics speed - so that's understandable and right in this context.

Modern Basics, like QB, VB and PB have so much more versatility than old school line numbered basic that they can do a lot more than many programmers expect. It isn't just a learning or engineer's math tool anymore. Some versions do even more, BASM (a constrained basic to ASM translator) has includes and the ability to easily write ASM into the program, for instance. (like TurboPascal I think)

I tend to think C has to be the foundation language to learn if you want to do stuff in C, C++, Java and all those other HLLs (like Python) that grew from C variants. I'd agree with PrimeSide that jumping from Basic to C can be tricky, which may be one reason why Pascal remains popular (the other being Delphi). Ever heard of BCX - the Basic (like language) to C translator?

I think we could all add those 'make your own game' type scripts into the hall of lame though.

I'm using the wonderful Allegro library with DJGPP... which is fantastic.

I used to use a language called Blitz Basic 2.1 on the Amiga back a few years ago which I used to love.

Have any of you heard of this language?

I actually saw a new version for Windows today but I refrained from buying it because the new version only creates Windows executables whilst Allegro has support for portability with the W.I.P, I am using version 3.12 though and am waiting for the next release version before upgrading.

Is that a good idea?

quote:And I know nothing about the C# but, I'm sure that's a joke too! I I'm not wrong, it's a langugage that has the same purpose than Java, so, java is like C and C# is like what?
If you are a Windows programmer, C# is a blessing. I'm an official Visual Studio .NET beta tester (whoopee), and I've used Beta 1. The syntax and idea for C# resembles Java (because they both are derived from c++), but the resemblance stops there. C# will be significantly easier to program windows apps than C++, and yet way more powerful than Visual BASIC. An interesting thing is that VB 7 (.NET) is not backwards compatible with VB 6. It's about time Microsoft realized that keeping backwards compatibility at the expense of progressing is dumb. The way that C#, "Managed" C++, and VB interact with each other is amazing. You can easily write a function in C# and execute it with VB, etc... In fact all three use the same exact GUI now. But don't get confused and think that C# will be cross platform. It could be, but someone would have to port the entire .NET framework - something only Microsoft probably has the resources or desires too. It may happen, but I've not heard of any timetable at all.
--
Matthew Leverton - matthew.leverton@interclay.com

quote:I am using version 3.12 though and am waiting for the next release version before upgrading.
Is that a good idea?
A small percentage of people have problems with the Allegro WIPs, but typically it is in the brand new features. I'd recommend upgrading to 3.9.XX and try to keep somewhat current. You may be waiting years until they decide to officially release 4.0.
--
Matthew Leverton - matthew.leverton@interclay.com

sikobabel,
well, actually I haven't used RPG myself (don't know if it's the same as PL/X). It was a friend who works at a company developing database solutions on IBM minicomputers (is that the word?) who told me of it. Maybe RPG itself is not made by IBM. Anyway, as I remember, variable names could only be 8 chars long, and input values had to be aligned to certain line positions, and lots of weird stuff like that.

asammahmood,
Blitz Basic was cool! I wrote several games in it on my old Amiga 1200 (which I've still got, btw). I could never get any of the games to work on my friends Amigas though, but I guess that was my fault

Matthew, are there any C# white papers publicly available?

dschlyder,

Yeah Blitz Basic was one of the best programming languages I ever used!!

It was so easy to do game-related stuff in the language like create bitmaps, play music modules, play animations and it was very fast for a basic programming language.

I also remember the cool assembly language feature it had were you could speed up graphically intensive routines in your code.

Those were the good old days....

I have to say though ever since I've started using Allegro it reminds me of Blitz Basic because they are so much alike.

P.S. I am using version 3.12 of allegro and I was wondering whats new in the W.I.P version? and does it work properly?

Also I am interested in the W.I.P version because of the Windows portability and was wondering if version 3.12 and the W.I.P version can both exist on the same computer?

Its just that I've got lots of library extentions on 3.12 and don't want to lose them.

Asam

asammahmood,

Good old days indeed. Allegro reminds me of Blitz Basic too. Very easy to do stuff. One of these days I'm gonna try to port my old Amiga games (if I don't get a heart attack looking at the source ;-).

I started using WIP 3.9.30, so I don't know much about 3.12, but the WIP works great for me using both DJGPP and MingW32. About using both 3.12 and the WIP, 3.12 was only for DOS, right? So why don't you just keep that, and install mingw separately with the WIP and then make a couple of batch files for setting up the compilers, instead of doing it in autoexec.bat. Then you can switch easily.

Anyone ever try PILOT? Now THAT is a horrible language.

quote:Matthew, are there any C# white papers publicly available?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/dotnet/csspec/vclrfcsharpspec_Start.htm
They are starting to post info on their online MSDN, but a lot of it's incomplete. You'll notice the syntax looks a lot like Java, although there are some nice features. For example, you can do something like:
foo.bar = 3;
And "bar" is actually a "function". So instead of the classical:
foo.setBar(foo.getBar() + 1);
You can do a:
foo.bar++;
There are of course other improvements...
--
Matthew Leverton - matthew.leverton@interclay.com

Well, I would have to say the worst language (for me) was java. Too limited, can't do much anything in it, and people just use it for crappy text/graphics effects, which you could do with animated GIF files, which are a little easier on the ol' CPU. Most good programmers can go beyond a language's limitations, but I'm not one of them
C/C++ Forever!
VB is pretty cool
Pascal is ok
ASM is just kooky
BASIC is fun to mess with
Perl is awesome
Haven't tried any others.
Peace, Love, and Tollerance

i loved quickbasic. it made it so easy to develop just about any program or tool i could think of quicker than any other language. if you needed speed, you just popped out a make shift ASM or C/C++ routine. in fact i would still be using it if i could find a quality (free) 32bit compiler...

The worst language ever is... WELSH!

I think the worst language is FoxPro, if it can be called language. It is one of the most stupid programs I've ever seen.
And the worst real programming language?
I think it's Pascal - it all seems to me, as it wasn't finished - so many bugs

I must say that, without a doubt, Intercal is the worst programming language ever invented.
Example:
This is a simple "Hello World" program, written for Intercal:
PLEASE DO ,1 <- #13
DO ,1 SUB #1 <- #584
DO ,1 SUB #2 <- #837
DO ,1 SUB #3 <- #1100
DO ,1 SUB #4 <- #1356
DO ,1 SUB #5 <- #1615
DO ,1 SUB #6 <- #1824
DO ,1 SUB #7 <- #2135
DO ,1 SUB #8 <- #2383
DO ,1 SUB #9 <- #2642
DO ,1 SUB #10 <- #2892
DO ,1 SUB #11 <- #3140
DO ,1 SUB #12 <- #3361
DO ,1 SUB #13 <- #266
PLEASE DO ,2 <- #1
PLEASE DO .5 <- #0
PLEASE DO .4 <- #1
PLEASE COME FROM (1)
DO .6 <- ",1 SUB .4"~#255
DO .6 <- !6~#15'$!6~#240'
DO .6 <- !6~#15'$!6~#240'
DO .6 <- !6~#15'$!6~#240'
DO .1 <- .5
DO .2 <- .6
PLEASE DO (1010) NEXT
DO .3 <- .3~#255
DO .5 <- .6
DO ,2 SUB #1 <- .3
PLEASE READ OUT ,2
(1) PLEASE DO .4 <- ",1 SUB .4"~#3840
PLEASE GIVE UP
Also, look at this ROT-13 decoder some guy wrote for Intercal:
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~jlm/rot13.i
Described at alt.folklore.computers as "4 pages of completely indecipherable code"

arghh! the worst language has to be BBC basic.. it sux so much and you have to type in line numbers and its annoying cos you have to type list to show the program...

You obviously lost your old habits - BBC BASIC required all keywords to be in capitals!

I think BBC BASIC really brings back memories :-) And, it has a built-in assembler, which is more than can be said for QuickBASIC. And... COLOUR is spelt properly!

You do know about the AUTO keyword, don't you? Also, there was a ROM for editing BBC BASIC programs, which worked a bit like the QuickBASIC editor.

The BBC Computer had loads of advantages over the PC. Sure it didn't have as much memory... but sound was much better, it was much easier to access a 100 Hz timer (18.2 really isn't enough for games)... it started up really quickly :-)... and all the technical documentation came with the computer!