From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c733905936c6b6b0
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.202.168 with SMTP id kj8mr368791pbc.1.1334699954521;
        Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 r9ni68044pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: anon@att.net
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: [OT] interesting reason why a language is considered good
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:59:08 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <jmkp3b$bol$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <jme7r1$eo7$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Reply-To: anon@anon.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: fanK7AZd0FVfJ43uvMTDxQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0
Date: 2012-04-17T21:59:08+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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