What is the worst programming language ever?

Question

Programming languages

Answer 1

Anton Böhler that's not fair. Punchcards were state of the art for their time.

Answer 2

Flandre Scarlet if I am not mistaken, I think machine language has a 1-1 relationship with Assembly for the given processor. Also I think that loops are implemented via JMP statements which are like gotos.

Answer 3

You need to define first how the "worst language" is judged🤔

Answer 4

Omohau Motsoane I would say brainf**k is the closest to machine languages🤔
Or probably, it's exactly how machine languages work🤔

Answer 5

probably programs that were made with punch-cards

Answer 6

Omohau Motsoane I know😂
Just telling you that you can search how assembly or machine languages work. You'll find them quite similar😀

Answer 7

I remember C64 Basic was anything but basic. For example to position sprite (24×21 pixel object) to a location on the screen i had to send the y value to a 8bit memory register, the x value to another memory register and if it was more than 255, there was a common register for the 9th bits of the 8 possible sprites one particular bit for each.
Such a simple thing to set backround color to black was like POKE 53281,0 . Line numbering was obligatory. Variable name lenght was maximized to 2 characters. The maximum code size was 38911 bytes.
So it was a nightmare, but as it was the 1980s, i loved it.

Answer 8

Worst in which way? Its a matter of opinion. Any 1 which you don't like but are forced to use will feel like the worst.
Otherwise Malbolge is kinda insane.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbolge

Answer 9

I'd say that the worst programming language is Brain f*ck based on its lack of functionality unnecessary complexity and is just used to challenge and amuse programmers no wonder why it's called BRAINF*CK
Here's a link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

Answer 10

Just my opinion🙂

Answer 11

Flandre Scarlet i would not say that BF and assembly are similar. Of course, because of the lack of resources, on both cases you need to program some stuff from scratch. But assembly is made to be a real world usable language. One very important point is that assembly can (i.e. uses to) be interpreter specific, and BF is more of a portable language.

Answer 12

Edward I'm not sure🤔
But think about storages, it can be seen as a 1-D array with 8-bits, which is exactly same as BF.
"print" in BF is quite similar to "INT" in assembly, which is executing a bytecode.
Both can assign values to a byte with user input (I think🤔).
"MOV" in assembly seems also transferring values 1 by 1, just same as what we do in BF.
The only thing I'm not sure is the loop in BF. I don't know if there's loop in assembly🤔
These are why I think they're quite similar🤔
And, I said BF is like machine languages, not assembly😂

Answer 13

Flandre Scarlet Sonic , this aspects are similar. On 8 bit RISC assembler you have "bit test flag skip if set" (or skip if reset) BTFSS or BTFFC as a kind of "if then else" statement.
"for next" loops can be implemented using "decrement F, skip if zero" DECFSZ. So you use a variable (the "file" F) that counts downwards until zero. See the example "for MyCountVar = 10 to 1 step -1" below:
MOVF 10, MyCountVar
LoopStart:
<code within the for-next loop>
DECFSZ MyCountVar
JMP LoopStart
<rest of code after the for loop>

Answer 14

Sonic yes, so each device has its own assembly🤔
And for loops, it's actually more like an if-else statement for me, executing only if it doesn't get 0🤔
As I remember, assembly also has it, and just like you said, using JMP when it gets 0 (or not 0?)🤔
All these make me feel BF is actually machine languages, just not defined what behaviors the output bytecodes should be🤔