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

[anon@att.net]

Most languages uses, a limited set of words. One reason is that it is 
easier to implement. An example is where a routine does not return a 
value aka a procedure is defined in some languages like Ada with the 
usage of the word "procedure" but in other languages like C the same 
routines is defined as a function with a "void" return value. The 
problem in C is that a "return <value>" statement can still be used 
with a C's procedure, unlike Ada.


An exception is PL/I.

Due to it origins PL/I is the one of a very few language that more 
language words. And in PL/I there is no "Reserved words." All words 
can be use for any purpose, an and example of a legal statement is,

  if if = true then
    else = 0 ;
  else
    call then ;
  end ;

In this case, "if" and "then" and "else" are both variables, routine 
and language words. And even though these type of statement are legal 
most PL/I programmers only see these type of statements on test or a 
text book.


In <jme7r1$eo7$1@speranza.aioe.org>, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> writes:
>
>I thought some here might enjoy this, since I know Ada
>folks are more "software engineering" aware than the
>average on the net ;)
>
>Here is what I read:
>
>"The lack of reserved words in the language gives the
>programmer complete freedom to choose identifiers."
>
>The above was listed under the header of what makes this
>language easy, robust and well defined! (I am not
>going to name the language).
>
>Now, I found this to be so strange and really bizarre, as
>I would have thought it should be the other way round.
>
>Reserved words are a good thing. Having an
>identifier be called 'if' or 'then' or 'which' is
>supposed to be good as it gives the programmer the freedom
>to choose the name of the variables?
>
>I am sometimes just amazed at what I read on the net
>about what makes a language good. But this one tops
>the list.
>
>--Nasser