An alternative front page for grumblers to HOPL

An interactive historical roster of computer languages

This site is concerned with the idea-historical treatment of the development of programming languages as a means of human expression and creation.

It consists of a 7521-strong database of languages, complete with 15070 bibliographic records, as well as links, reviews, samples and commentary where possible. To support this effort, I have been working on developing a taxonomy and matching keyset for the purpose of accurate identification and positioning of any language within the ordinatolinguisitic universe of discourse.

I also have a rudimentary family tree linking them all, but it is so unfathomably huge (9m x 6m) I don't quite know how to present it. Version 1 with randomly-coloured nodes is here. Version 2 with country-coloured nodes is here Moreover the type of computer language-trees that are normally seen in such circumstances are in no way accurate maps: nothing less than a 9-tuple can show the complexity of computer language inheritance. However, the record for each language will show the relationships in a navigable format. Please be patient when downloading them as even the small ones take a while to create.

A list of my own favourite languages is here. Some links to further resources (including other HOPL sites, and several language genealogies) are here. An elementary reference bibliography is Here.

This effort is dedicated to Jean Sammet, pioneer and visionary, without whose tireless efforts most of this information would have been lost forever.

Any changes and corrections should be addressed to myself, Diarmuid Pigott (dpigott), at the University via email (@murdoch.edu.au). (I used to have a direct link, but it got harvested)

You can search through the system via this page:
name
string match
year
system
Pigott Genus
Sammet Family
search in notes
Institution
Person
Country
Source details
In source extracts

PS: in answer to the latest comments regarding selection, I quote Strachey:
I am all in favour of having lots and lots of programming languages. Of course, most people who write a complicated large program for dealing with some kind of group of problems are in fact writing the program language. I think that when we know more about writing compilers, more programs will look like languages instead of multiple-purpose subroutines. I must say that the fact that business languages started off by being ever so simple, and then got unwieldy and complicated, does remind me of the early computing machines which were going to be "ever so simple" to program.