The Worst Programming Languages Revealed

In the vast landscape of programming languages, there are stars shining brightly, leading innovation and powering technological advancements. However, there’s also a darker side, where languages lurk in the shadows, causing headaches and frustration for developers worldwide. In this blog post, we embark on a journey to explore the depths of programming language history and uncover those languages that have earned the title of the worst.

Understanding the Criteria

Before delving into the specifics, it’s essential to establish the criteria for what makes a programming language “bad.” While there’s no universally agreed-upon set of metrics, several factors contribute to a language’s reputation:

• Complexity: Languages with convoluted syntax and steep learning curves can deter developers from using them;
• Poor Documentation: Inadequate or outdated documentation can make it challenging for developers to understand and use the language effectively;
• Performance Issues: Languages that suffer from poor performance or inefficiency can hinder the development process and compromise the quality of software;
• Community Support: A lack of active community support can leave developers stranded when they encounter problems or need assistance;
• Obsolete or Deprecated: Languages that have become obsolete or deprecated may pose risks to projects due to limited support and compatibility issues.

With these criteria in mind, let’s shine a light on some of the worst programming languages of all time.

What is the worst programming language?

Labeling any programming language as the “worst” is subjective and context-dependent. Different languages have different strengths and weaknesses, and what may be considered “worst” for one project or programmer might be the perfect fit for another. However, there are certain languages that are often criticized for various reasons. Here are a few examples:

INTERCAL

INTERCAL, short for “Compiler Language With No Pronounceable Acronym,” is a programming language created in the early 1970s as a parody and satire of computer programming languages. It was designed to be deliberately confusing and difficult to use, often described as “Turing Tarpit” due to its intentionally obtuse syntax and semantics.

Some features of INTERCAL include:

• Unusual Syntax: INTERCAL uses bizarre syntax elements such as “PLEASE” and “PLEASE DO” for control flow statements, “ABSTAIN FROM” for comments, and “FORGET” for variable assignment;
• Randomness: Certain aspects of INTERCAL, such as the behavior of certain operators, are intentionally random or undefined, making it even more difficult to predict program behavior;
• Overly Complex Features: The language includes features such as COME FROM statements (in contrast to GOTO), which further add to the confusion and difficulty of writing and understanding programs;
• Irrational Control Structures: Control structures in INTERCAL are designed to be illogical and counterintuitive, making it challenging for programmers to reason about program flow.

Despite its intentionally difficult nature, INTERCAL has gained a cult following among some programmers who enjoy its absurdity and see it as a form of entertainment or a challenge. However, it is not used for practical programming tasks and is mostly considered a curiosity or a historical artifact in the world of programming languages.

COBOL

COBOL, which stands for “Common Business-Oriented Language,” is a high-level programming language primarily designed for business, finance, and administrative applications. Developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s, COBOL was one of the earliest high-level programming languages and remains in use today, particularly in legacy systems within industries such as banking, insurance, and government.

While COBOL has been criticized for various reasons, it’s important to note that it has served and continues to serve a crucial role in many large-scale enterprise systems. Here are some points often mentioned in discussions about COBOL:

• Verbose Syntax: COBOL is known for its verbose and English-like syntax, which can make programs longer and more complex compared to modern languages. This verbosity was intentional to make the language more readable and understandable by non-programmers, such as business analysts and managers;
• Limited Support for Modern Programming Paradigms: COBOL was designed with a focus on batch processing and record-oriented data handling, which are common in business applications. However, it lacks support for modern programming paradigms such as object-oriented programming and functional programming, which are prevalent in newer languages;
• Difficulty in Maintenance and Modernization: Legacy COBOL systems often face challenges in maintenance, modernization, and integration with newer technologies. The aging COBOL workforce and the lack of new developers familiar with the language have contributed to concerns about the sustainability of COBOL-based systems;
• Perceived Lack of Flexibility and Expressiveness: Some developers criticize COBOL for its perceived lack of flexibility and expressiveness compared to more modern programming languages. While COBOL excels in certain domains, it may not be as suitable for tasks requiring rapid development or handling complex algorithms.

Despite these criticisms, COBOL remains deeply entrenched in critical systems, especially in industries where stability, reliability, and backward compatibility are paramount. Efforts to modernize COBOL systems, integrate them with newer technologies, and train new developers in COBOL continue to address some of the concerns associated with the language’s longevity.

Brainfuck

Brainfuck is an esoteric programming language created in 1993 by Urban Müller. It is known for its minimalist design, consisting of only eight commands, and its Turing completeness, meaning it can theoretically solve any computational problem given enough time and memory.

Here are some characteristics of Brainfuck:

• Minimalistic Syntax: Brainfuck programs are composed of only eight characters: ‘<‘, ‘>’, ‘+’, ‘-‘, ‘.’, ‘,’, ‘[‘, and ‘]’. Each character corresponds to a specific operation, such as moving the memory pointer, incrementing or decrementing the value at the memory pointer, input/output, and control flow;
• Turing Completeness: Despite its simplicity, Brainfuck is Turing complete, meaning it can express any computation that a Turing machine can perform. This property makes Brainfuck capable of solving a wide range of computational problems, although it may not be practical for many real-world applications due to its minimalism and lack of built-in features;
• Obscurity and Difficulty: Brainfuck’s minimalistic syntax and lack of meaningful mnemonics make it extremely difficult to write, read, and understand. Programs written in Brainfuck are often cryptic and require a deep understanding of the language’s mechanics;
• Educational and Recreational Use: Brainfuck is primarily used for educational purposes, to demonstrate concepts of programming language design, compilers, and Turing completeness. It is also popular among enthusiasts as a challenge or puzzle, with contests and competitions focused on writing and understanding Brainfuck programs.

Overall, Brainfuck is an interesting and unique language in the realm of esoteric programming languages, but its impracticality and difficulty make it unsuitable for most real-world programming tasks. However, its simplicity and Turing completeness make it a fascinating subject for exploration and experimentation in the field of computer science.

Malbolge

Malbolge is an esoteric programming language created by Ben Olmstead in 1998. It is known for being one of the most difficult programming languages to write programs in, intentionally designed to be extremely challenging for humans to comprehend and use.

Here are some key features of Malbolge:

• Complexity: Malbolge is designed to be intentionally difficult to program in. Its design includes features such as self-modifying code and non-linear control flow, which make writing programs in Malbolge a daunting task;
• Unintuitive Design: The language’s instruction set and execution model are intentionally obfuscated and unintuitive. For example, the memory cells wrap around in unpredictable ways, and the execution flow is highly convoluted;
• Self-modifying Code: Malbolge programs often modify their own instructions during execution, adding an extra layer of complexity and making it even harder to reason about program behavior;
• Turing Completeness: Despite its extreme difficulty, Malbolge is Turing complete, meaning it can theoretically solve any computational problem. However, in practice, writing useful programs in Malbolge is nearly impossible due to its complexity;
• Obscurity: Malbolge is primarily used as a challenge or curiosity rather than for practical programming tasks. It is often featured in programming puzzles, competitions, and as a demonstration of extreme programming language design.

Overall, Malbolge is renowned for its extreme difficulty and is considered more of a curiosity or intellectual exercise in programming language design rather than a practical tool for software development. It is not used in industry or academia for serious programming tasks due to its impracticality and complexity.

LOLCODE

While the idea of a programming language based on internet slang may sound amusing, LOLCODE’s novelty quickly wears off once you attempt to use it seriously. Featuring syntax inspired by the language of memes and cat videos, LOLCODE sacrifices readability and usability in favor of humor. While it may have niche applications in parody or education, LOLCODE is hardly suitable for practical software development.

OLCODE is an esoteric programming language inspired by the internet meme culture of “lolcats,” where pictures of cats with humorous captions written in broken English are shared online. Created in 2007 by Adam Lindsay, LOLCODE is designed to be both fun and educational, serving as a parody of programming language syntax while also being a fully functional programming language.

Here are some key features of LOLCODE:

• Language Syntax: LOLCODE’s syntax is inspired by the language used in lolcats memes, featuring phrases like “HAI,” “KTHXBYE,” “O RLY?,” and “WTF?” as keywords. It incorporates broken English and internet slang into its syntax, making it both humorous and unconventional;
• Datatypes and Variables: LOLCODE supports basic data types such as integers, floats, strings, and booleans. Variables are declared using the keyword “I HAS A,” followed by the variable name and an optional initialization value;
• Control Structures: LOLCODE includes control structures such as conditionals (IF…ELSE), loops (IM IN YR…), and switch statements (O RLY?).
• Input and Output: Input and output operations are performed using the keywords “GIMMEH” and “VISIBLE” respectively. LOLCODE programs can interact with users through text-based input and output;
• Error Handling: LOLCODE includes error handling mechanisms such as try-catch blocks (YA RLY…NO WAI) for exception handling.

LOLCODE is primarily used for entertainment, educational purposes, and as a way to introduce programming concepts to beginners in a fun and approachable manner. While it’s not suitable for serious software development due to its unconventional syntax and limited practicality, LOLCODE serves as a creative and humorous exploration of programming language design. Additionally, it helps reinforce fundamental programming concepts such as variables, control flow, and syntax through its unique approach.

Conclusion

While the programming world is full of innovative and powerful languages, there are also those that stand out for all the wrong reasons. Whether due to their complexity, impracticality, or sheer absurdity, the languages mentioned above have earned their place among the worst of the worst. While they may serve as cautionary tales or sources of amusement, it’s clear that developers are better off sticking to more conventional and practical languages for their projects.

In conclusion, while it’s essential to learn from the mistakes of the past, dwelling on the worst programming languages of yesteryear won’t move the industry forward. Instead, let’s focus on the languages that empower developers to create amazing things and leave the nightmares of the past where they belong—in the annals of programming history.