Am So., 13. Nov. 2022 um 21:22 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
> > Consider how this sounds when rewritten to talk about natural languages:
>
> Computer languages are formal systems. You should compare to math, not
> natural languages.
>
> We need a "standard model" of programming languages. Every day, type
> theorists are busy making bits and pieces of it. Once they rid
> themselves of the mindset that every language is an island, it's only a
> matter of time until we get what I want.
>
> > Of course the reason is that a natural language is "un système oú tout
> > se tient", although to varying degrees.  A language using Finnish case
> > endings, Bantu noun classes (like grammatical genders, except there are
> > 22 of them), and Navajo verb endings applied to English roots isn't a
> > system, it's a mess.
>
> Computer languages are not inherently messy. Probably most of the
> improvement in the field proceeds directly from cleaning old messes.

I think the point is that you already get a mess with programming
languages even when you only throw together closely related languages.
For example, take Scheme and add all the things people like about CL
and that are perceived not to be in Scheme.  You'll end up with
something I would call a mess.  When you try to clean up the mess,
chances are that you end up with either Scheme or CL.

Don´t get me wrong; I like the idea of a statically typed language
that is interoperable with Scheme.  I can't imagine the idea of a
catch-all language.  Actually, I think it is good if language
differences are not blurred.  This helps select the correct language
for the job (and for one's preferences) and makes it easier to
understand a particular language's model and scope.