On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 10:55:43 UTC, claptrap wrote:

Yes, and that has been evolving as well. Often times they had to make do with what the typograph had available when setting their papers. (Like turning an "A" or "E" upside down.)

I don't think this is true. Programming language syntax evolve at a higher pace than natural language, and programmers bend the syntax whenever they get a chance to suit their own taste (self expression).

It is a mix, it is also a strategic choice, making assumptions about what would make it look appealing to existing programmers.

The designers don't decide which ones of the languages that catch on. What programmers adopt determines the direction of language evolution. There are thousands of programming languages. That is why culture and identity is a force in this evolution process.

On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 12:00:09 UTC, ClapTrap wrote:

baby vs bathwater

On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 12:22:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

Well probably they had their own notation on actual pen and paper. But the fact that when coming to type setting they preferred an upside down 'E' over writing a word makes it look like there is something appealing in writing the expressions symbolically that you just don't seem to grasp.

They are adding about 1000 new words to the English dictionary each year and many of those are new meanings for existing words.

And that's just the stuff that makes it in.

Programming languages are not even in the same race.

I am constantly having to ask my kids (18 & 22) and their friends what some word or phrase means, (and sometimes I wish I hadn't asked.)

Do programmers really think to themselves "I'm not using Pascal because i'll look like a douchebag writing my boolean expressions that way"? I dont see it. I can see people being swayed by language syntax, (I personally dont like overly wordy languages like pascal), but I dont see people making that choice based on what they assume other people will think of them. I mean the only other people who will likely see your code will be people using the same language, so like who cares?

On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 13:23:57 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:

I know the idiom but I dont understand what you mean in this context.

On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 22:05:06 UTC, ClapTrap wrote:

Why personal attacks? If you read old math writings you will see that they did actually write out math with plain words. Compact short forms came later and mathematicians still don't agree on one common syntax. So there is indeed a personal aspect to writing mathematics. This become obvious if you read proofs, there are many different styles. Clearly strong personal preferences at display.

That's more like a library. You don't change the grammar when you add new words.

Exactly, they are extended at a far higher pace. 347000 Java repos in the past 2 months. How many new "words" do you think that is?

Right, and it is a challenge to stay up to date with the constant stream of new versions of programming frameworks.

Oh, I think many would shy away from Pascal, Fortran, Ada and other languages that are "old" or "grey beard" without knowing anything about the languages at all!! There is a clear Fashionista element to both programming languages and programming frameworks. Which ties into identity and "being current".

Just like there are young wanna-become-programmers that start out with C++ (which is a particularly bad choice) because it is used in AAA-games and they identify themselves as soon to become kickass game-programmers (because that is where their heros/passion are).

On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 22:24:40 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

So, to bring this discussion to an end: I am not saying that people should not use symbols and formalisms. I am saying that using "&&" over "and" is not giving a usability advantage, and I believe that can be both argued and in theory measured (although difficult).

If you read mathematical proofs you'll see that proofs that only use formalisms can be very difficult to follow for a human being (although easy to verify for a computer). So written proofs tend to use words where emphasis and understanding is important.

When language designers talk about their languages they often emphasis aesthetic dimensions. So language design is just as much art as it is engineering. Which ties to culture, identity and in essence philosophy. Mathematicians talk about beauty in relation to proofs, programmers talk about beauty in relation to coding. Again, influenced by culture and identity.

In essence this is a good thing. If language design was all about engineering then we wouldn't have so many options to choose from! :-D

On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 22:24:40 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

I dont think it is a personal attack to say you dont seem to grasp something.

If everything written in Java is extending the language, then everything written in English is extending that too. So which is growing faster now?

Or keep up with every book / article / blog post written?

I worked with Delphi for about 10 years, i know plenty about it, it was very productive but I wasn't keen on the overly wordy syntax. Fast compile times, strings that just worked, and an amazing IDE were probably the highlights.

You seem to have a bit of a thing about people who are trying to be cool and fashionable.

On Tuesday, 26 October 2021 at 01:06:31 UTC, ClapTrap wrote:

Fair enough, let us say only libraries and frameworks extend the language.
:-)

Nobody said that everything should be keywords...

Have you tried to make everything symbols? I have experimented with unicode syntax in the past few years, and have found that replacing "if" and "while" leads to less legible code, no matter how it is done. And I have tried many options. You can do it if you go fully graphical and leave text editing altogether, but with not with text editing.

Why all the ad hominems? No, I am trying to show you that the dynamic forces include more factors than rational engineering,

On Tuesday, 26 October 2021 at 04:12:36 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

Is it ad hominen to point out that you seem to jump to certain explanations of why people do something?

Personally i don't think it's relevant, I mean I'm sure it exists, but i dont think kids who wannabee leet programmers drive the adoption of C++. I dont think having "&&" over "and" drives it either.

On Tuesday, 26 October 2021 at 09:17:18 UTC, ClapTrap wrote:

Yes. You are making assumptions from arbitrary examples. Don't do that.

There is no singular group that keeps C++ relevant. Among those that pick up C++ as a hobby you'll have a rather young audience. It is a language that requires a lot of patience and dedication.