Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!granite.pa.dec.com!mwm From: mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: The Universal Language (Was Re: Efficient Fortran) Message-ID: Date: 9 Aug 90 15:33:08 GMT References: <24044@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 34 In-Reply-To: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu's message of 8 Aug 90 21:09:31 GMT In article <24044@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: Also, in my usage, just because everyone doesn't use a language that doesn't prove that it isn't universal. English is fairly universal as a means of expression but it's not universal in the sense that everyone speaks it. When I say "universal" I'm refering to the first sense, that it is adequate for most purposes of expression, not that it is actually used by everyone. Ah, the wonders of the Universal Language English. We can make it mean pretty much what we want it to mean. That's not acceptable for programming languages, of course. There's a higher authority than people - the various language translators. If those don't largely agree on what a specific text means, then the language is pretty much worthless as a programming language. I claim there are already a number of languages that are "universal" in that sense, as there are people who use them for most (or all) purposes of expression. Of course, if you allow "adequate" to be even more weakly defined than "universal", then tapes for turing machines are the first such example. No, to be universal, a language must provide access to all forms of expression of sufficient quality that a large percentage of programmers will be willing to use it instead of whatever they're using now. That's a non-negiotable portion of the definition of "adequate."