Re: OT - Programming Languages w/o English Syntax
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:01:24PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 12:29, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 at 11:15 GMT, Tom penned:
> > > [OT, sorry -- but question is obscure, will be hard to google]
> > >
> > > Are any non-english-speaking readers aware of High-level programming
> > > languages using non-English syntax? Like, could I find a French C
> > > compiler that uses "pour" instead of "for" and "si" instead of "if"?
> > You're right; the anglo-centric nature of most programming languages is
> > distressing. It would be fun to code in a language based on a totally
> Distressing???????? What an over-reaction.
> Guess what? When French/German/Chinese/Spanish/Portuguese/Japanese
> Computer Scientists decide to write a programming language in their
> own native language, there will be programming languages in those
> languages. But then, why did Niklaus Wirth use English key words,
> even though he is Swiss/German?
Okay, I started this OT thread, I'll try to end it.
*I was interested in languages with alternate semantics, not just
*20 years ago I read an article comparing programming languages with the
nationality of the author. (Pascal->Wirth->German: highly structured
syntax. C->Americans: fast and loose, 20 ways to say the same thing.)
You can say in Latin in 7 words what takes 11 words to say in English.
Chinese can be incredibly terse (e.g., ancient chinese business
documents) or incredbily expressive (e.e., chinese poetry), so that
might make an interesting programming language.
*Most westerns think in Subject-Predicate terms; i.e., the subject is
primary, the predicate modifies it, so we all have Object.Method
languages. Cherokee indians use Predicate-Subject; predicate is the
central term, subject modifies it, like functional languages.
But all of this is terribly OT for the thread, so let it die. Thanks to
all who answered.