Call me crazy, but how does the language you do this in become relevant? As a reference perhaps? Only the best of intentions here, have i missed a paticular pov that makes this extra relevant?
* For projects where one of the main purposes is for the author of the project to learn said language
* For projects which expose an API in their implementation language. In the case of an implementation of a programming language, they might offer embeddability in the host language, or a foreign function interface with the host language.
Is there any evidence that the "user" of an API is likely to prefer the same language that was used for the original thing?
(BTW this does not seem to be the case for networked APIs such as REST services).
Direct FFIs are possible, but generally don't happen except in exceptional cases because of the cost involved in writing a new FFI (and accompanying set of gotchas) for every possible language whose packages you might want to consume. The best and worst thing about the C ABI is that it's pretty much the least common denominator.
Even in platforms like Java and .NET that theoretically smooth over these problems, we find that it never works out that well in practice. Scala and F# users end up having to write compatibility layers in order to preset Java and C# friendly APIs, and they end up writing their own versions of just about every possible library in order to have packages that don't feel awkward to use in their language of choice. The only real exception I know of to that pattern on the JVM or the CLR is between C# and Visual Basic, and that is only because Microsoft was very careful to ensure that the two languages' semantics were similar enough to virtually guarantee no cross-language friction.
I'd suggest that in many forums it is irrelevant to most and should be left off, but I suspect HN is not a representative sample of the general public and many may share my sentiment.
So even if I cannot read the code, I can mentally get an idea that tool X is a good fit for problem Y should it ever come up for me.
Interpreting a simple lisp-like in lisp is borderline trivial. Interpreting a simple lisp-like in an imperative language demonstrates a significantly more fundamental understanding of how lisp-like languages work.
As far as I am concerned there is one aspect where I think it is relevant for me, as I compile all software that runs on my machine. If it written in C or in C++, there are good chances that I won't need to compile an horrible chain of dependencies (or most likely, try and fail at compile that chain).
That matters to me, because I try a lot of alternative/niche/toy languages, and if I consider those published within, say, the last ten years, half of them won't even compile. It is a disaster. If it is written in shell + C, I can fix a couple errors easily (if there are more I give up because there is no point in wasting my time on something that claims to be next programming marvel and yet is itself programmed like shit). People want to be fancy and pick up toolchains that are not battle-tested like Autotools+C or CMake+C++, and that's the recipe for pain.
For example, today I tried to compile two languages written in Ada, and I had to give up. A mess. Each time I tried to build an Ada project which wasn't mine, it has been horrible. That's antinomic to the image of Ada (clean and strict to the point of being stiff) but that's my repeated experience with building.
I am not even talking about the anti-feature which is compilers which are written in the very language they aim to compile and do not even provide a bootstrapping minimal compiler written in C or similarly fundamental and widespread language. They're generally very proud of their accomplishment :-/
So yes, a project in C (or C++) offers the best chances of success (for building, which is the point I developed here).
Also, considering toy language, I often want to make a dirty hack to add a missing features. If it is written, say, in Haskell, there is zero chance I can do it. Good old imperative languages like C, Python, Pascal, I have a chance and I have already done it.
There is also the case of all the languages built over the JVM. There are really many. But even when they look good to me, they are limited by the opinionated choices of the JVM, and I don't wanna undergo the multiple programming neuroses of Gosling. Also anything Java based has always been terribly, awfully, painfully, excruciatingly slow on any of my machines; I suppose it not an universal experience, but it has always been mine.
------
> compared to well tested, design, architectured, community engagement, track record, performance and usability.
To each is own: I care about well tested, usability, and depending on the intended use, performance. I also care a lot about proper exhaustive documentation, which is missing from your list and from most programming languages projects.
But I don't give a damn about its design and architecture, what matters to me is the external features, not the internals. Language designers care way too much about the internals and neglect the outside, which is what matters to the end user. I don't care if it make your parser more complicated, it if makes your grammar irregular, if you need more passes, if you need to dirty your hands with context; I want that source code using your language flows, for writing and for reading.
Community? I don't really care, and I have seen it being detrimental to many projects, which lose their compass by wanting to incorporate every feature request and following the mood of the year; I'd rather they were developed between closed doors and only published when they reach beta status, to maintain consistency, instead of jumping from an unpolished feature to the next. I am aware that's totally against the current trend, where people publish repositories with a README.md before writing the first line of code or documentation :-)
>To each is own: I care about well tested, usability, and depending on the intended use, performance. I also care a lot about proper exhaustive documentation, which is missing from your list and from most programming languages projects.
~But I don't give a damn about its design and architecture, what matters to me is the external features, not the internals. Language designers care way too much about the internals and neglect the outside, which is what matters to the end user. I don't care if it make your parser more complicated, it if makes your grammar irregular, if you need more passes, if you need to dirty your hands with context; I want that source code using your language flows, for writing and for reading.
I think there's a disconnect here between good design and architecture and the result of it. You can't by definition have a good design and architecture that makes your program difficult to use and illogical externally. You can't have good tests without a good design and architecture. Good design and architecture goes hand in hand with usability too.
To go into a deep dive is beyond the scope here. But concisely said, good designs and architectures makes the software easy to understand and easy to change to external changes of requirements. Since its easy to reason about it's also easy to understand and reason about bugs when they inevitably shows up. If the software does not have these features, it does not have a good designs and architecture. You might think a certain architect cares more about the internals then the external, but then the architect is bad, and should study and should step back a step and think about the end user and heading of the software project. Or perhaps there's a communication issue going on, human <-> human style.
Good designs and architectures also is the equivalent, actually superior to, having good documentation. Documentation that defines the external goals are not required if you have good tests that shows them. Hell documentation about the code is not needed if the design and architecture is good. And the self documenting code can never lie. Is it difficult to achieve? Yes. But not trying will put you into a corner you can't get out of and inevitably lead to the rewrite-from-scratch. Unless of course you have a very strictly defined end goal and complete definition of done, but you could still paint yourself into a very difficult corner to get out of.
>Community? I don't really care, and I have seen it being detrimental to many projects, which lose their compass by wanting to incorporate every feature request and following the mood of the year; I'd rather they were developed between closed doors and only published when they reach beta status, to maintain consistency, instead of jumping from an unpolished feature to the next. I am aware that's totally against the current trend, where people publish repositories with a README.md before writing the first line of code or documentation :-)
Not sure i see the correlation between pushing readmes with intent and publishing unfinished feature upon unfinished feature. Isn't readme:s infact documentation? Well well :p i believe you can work in the open without jumping to unfinished feature to unfinished feature. Polish can come in the middle of a development cycle, not just the end. A vibrant community around a software also is equivalent with many contributors etc, which makes the software resilient to people moving to other things etc.
I might have sounded critical, but enjoyed reading your response. Thank you for your response :) I also believe you gave me clues to why the "written in" header is so popular.
The way you interpret certain values i gave was also insightful. I certainly don't have the same opinions, but non the less i can see where you come from. So i just had to respond to it :) Thank you!
Nope, language flamewars were pretty much alive on BBSs and USENET.
I have had my share against C on comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c.moderated.