Re: [OT] interesting reason why a language is considered good

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 16.04.12 12:43, Marius Amado-Alves wrote:
> Love OT threads in this clever forum:-)
> 
> Actually there is a bit of thruth in the absurd no keyword thing: *many* keywords can get in the way of naming identifiers. Ada, for one, has a bit too many keywords, with some good identifier candidates (when, others...)

"when" and "others" are general abstractions. What kind
of programs will in effect be about general abstractions?

(For example, "when" does not name the operation that happened
at the time that "when" should be denoting. Provided "when" is
supposed to ask for time, not conditions. I think that adding
the name of what happened to "when" to form an identifier will
reduce the amount of obfuscation that general abstractions will
incur: When_Added, When_Leaving, etc. The ambiguity of "when"
in natural language (also meaning "if") is an additional problem.)

("Others" does not name the "distinguishing line" that informs
about the qualities of the elements in the "others" set. Why are
those other objects (or values) different in this specific
program? Again, adding a descriptive name to others should
reduce the amount of obfuscation that general abstractions
will incur.)