Interview With Author of the First Spoof Language

An anonymous reader brings us Computerworld's interview with Don Woods, one of the creators of Compiler Language With No Pronounceable Acronym (INTERCAL). INTERCAL and its documentation were created in 1972 as a parody of that era's languages and instruction manuals. Among other things, Woods had this to say: "We designed the language without too much trouble. Writing the manual took a while, especially for things like the circuit diagrams we included as nonsensical illustrations. The compiler itself actually wasn't too much trouble, given that we weren't at all concerned with optimising the performance of either the compiler or the compiled code. I admit I'm surprised at its longevity. Some of the jokes in the original work feel rather dated at this point. It helps that the language provides a place where people can discuss oddball features missing from other languages, such as the 'COME FROM' statement and operators that work in base 3."

COME FROM revival

[listen]

If you hunker down and squint at it the right way, COME FROM is really an early form of aspect oriented programming - non local transfer of control to the point of definition - yeah, yeah CLOS fans we know that real generic functions subsume AOP and date from the mists of the 80s - but this is from the early 70s so it is pretty interesting. Over application of hyped technologies for the win!

Special hardware support for INTERCAL!

[Mr Z]

Interestingly, TI's C64x family of DSPs has special instructions that speed up INTERCAL. The "SHFL" instruction directly implements INTERCAL's "mingle" operator. The "DEAL" instruction implements common special cases of the "select" operator. Nifty, eh?

Re:Bah!

[jonadab]

Actually, I've seen the specs for Malbolge, and I still think Threaded INTERCAL is more ingenious and extreme.

Real Challenge...

[stuffman64]

How about instead of the Obfuscated C Code contest, we have an Unobfuscated INTERCAL Code contest where the object is to make INTERCAL code look as close to or at least as understandable as "normal" C (or other language) as possible while still performing a set action?

Putridos

[techno-vampire]

Those of you who think INTERCAL or some of the other languages mentioned here are weird have never run across the weirdest OS ever conceived: PutriDOS. [well.com] Among other things, the Clear Screen command blew all the phosphors off the inside of the CRT so that it could be examined, it had a "pretty printer" for its assembly language that reformatted the output into stars, flowers and other images, and an "upgrade" of FORTRAN called 4.1TRAN. It was supported by three companies, PutriDOS, PutridDOS and Putritech, who tended to forget which company wrote which program and upgrade each other's products in incompatible ways. Generally, your best bet was to find a user's group and request a hex patch.

Now THIS gets me thinking ...

[InterStellaArtois]

Languages as we know them have well-known paradigms such as functional decomposition, object orientation, casts, blah blah. And we're limited to these ways of thinking, useful as they are.

But to invent a parody language which doesn't really have to be useful ... could produce ideas we wouldn't have thought of along traditional lines.

Anyone who reads Edward de Bono (who teaches thinking skills including how to have creative ideas) knows about the 'provocation': you make some nonsensical statement about the problem domain, then see what interesting possibilities that opens up. The idea is to brainstorm and hopefully useful ideas will come out of the process.

E.g. off the top of my head ... Provocation: "computer languages should have source code which is unreadable" Leads to these (pretty random) ideas

• A language with a very large instruction set, perhaps allowing low level access into graphics APIs etc. but reasonably high level semantics
• A new microprocessor design which allows for a high level language which doesn't need to be compiled, a 'compromise' between the machine and its programmer
• Deliberate obfuscation of the source (OK nothing new there)
• Create a new natural language which is closer to how machines think, and have people program in that

I think silliness is a good way to solve many problems, thinking from outside the usual boundaries is often what's needed. Using the right tool for the job is normally the best approach but to paraphrase TFA a hacker is 'One who builds furniture using an axe' - now that has to result in some new ideas.