Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdragon!djsalomon
From: djsalomon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Daniel J. Salomon)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Perfect language features: how many languages?
Message-ID: <5015@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 88 03:04:33 GMT
References: <3928@ames.arpa> <2400001@otter.HP.COM> <960@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> <10407@mimsy.UUCP> <4930@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1535@uoregon.UUCP>
Reply-To: djsalomon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Daniel J. Salomon)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 55

In article <1535@uoregon.UUCP> markv@drizzle.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) writes:
>In article <4930@watdragon.waterloo.edu> djsalomon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Daniel J. Salomon) writes:
>>In article <10407@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>>>The idea of a universal language has appeal:  One language
>>>for every problem.  So does the idea of a universal vaccine:
>>>One cure for every illness.  Personally, I believe the chances
>>>for either are about the same.
>
>>This is a poor analogy.  The function of a programming language is
>>totally different from a vaccine, and so is the development process.
>>A vaccine has strict biological constraints on its size and form, but a
>>programming language has few constraints.  Save this cute line for
>>cocktail parties when people are too drunk to analyze it.
>
>First of all, your tone is not becoming of the normally high level of
>professionalism that is displayed in this newsgroup.  Criticism is part
>of the intellectual process, insults are not.  Confine such comments to
>newsgroups where such behavior is appropriate (i.e. none).
>
>Now, back to Chris' analogy, one that I have used is "Ya don't use a
>screwdriver to pound nails".  Some languages are better for symbolic
>processing, others are better for operating systems.  The type of
>problems you face dictate the tools you use to solve them.  
>
>The idea of one perfect language implies that everyone's needs are the
>same.  Sorry Charlie, t'aint so.
>
>mark vandewettering

If my comments offended anyone, I apologize.  The worst word I used was
"drunk", and I didn't apply it to the poster.  But I still think that
programming languages have little in common with vaccines, hammers or
screwdrivers.

An analogy with natural languages would be a better one.  Do we really
need 5,000 natural languages or would one do just as well?  If English
is missing the words needed for space travelers, should we design a
whole new language for space travelers or should we just add the
appropriate words to English?

Or consider mathematical notations.  There once were several different
notations for algebra, trigonometry and calculus, but standardizing the
notations has helped mathematicians communicate their ideas.  Sometimes
different fields use the same symbols to mean different things, but
this works like scoping rules in a programming language.  In different
scopes the same symbol can refer to different procedures.  A set of
mathematical techniques used only by a particular field can be compared
to a package of procedures used only at a particular installation.

Instead of comparing a programming language to a vaccine, it could be
compared to a pharmacy, and one would hope that one's pharmacy stocks
all the necessary vaccines.  Or one could view a programming language
as a toolmaker that can make both screwdrivers and hammers.
It may not be possible to devise a universal programming language, but
a comparison with vaccines is a poor analogy.