[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT - Programming Languages w/o English Syntax

Tom <tb.31009.nospam@comcast.net> writes:

> 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"?
> > [snip]
> > > 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?

I know, there was a swedish version of basic around in the 70s-80s
timeframe.  Other places would have had similar things.  I expect the
russians had some russian/cyrillic based thing.

> Okay, I started this OT thread, I'll try to end it.
> *I was interested in languages with alternate semantics, not just 
> alternate syntax.
> *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.

Have you tried Common-Lisp?  I found it to be very different from the
other languages I know, C, matlab, pascal, basic, fortran &c.  Even
though I don't use it much for my work, learning Lisp was mind expanding.


Reply to: