Forwards, Backwards, or nil
Programming languages can be categorised into many, many - uh, categories. That's no news.
But, no matter if you write object-oriented, structured, functional, or brainfuck - someday someone will read your program. (Well, maybe not if you're writing in Brainfuck... let's better just keep that aside for now)
Now, the first thing that I notice in a new programming language is not whether it's object-oriented. And it's not whether it supports monads or functors or even first-class functions. I only see the direction of reading.
In my very personal categorisation, there are exactly 3 directions currently available in programming languages:
The first one on the list is the easiest one to find examples for. Everybody knows it: Lisp (everybody does know Lisp, right?). In Lisp everything reads strictly from left to right: Add one to one
(+ 1 1). Display "hello"
(display "hello"). Define ls as a list of one and two
(define ls (list 1 2)).
Easy and - more importantly - consistent.
Now let's come two item two on the list, the right-to-left languages. These are harder to find. The most prominent example among the high-level languages is probably Forth. In Forth, most things read from right to left. Add one and one: "
1 1 +". Display the duplicate of 2: "
2 DUP .".
There are exceptions to these in Forth, but overall, due to its stack-based nature, it has a very strong right-to-left feeling. At least for me.
The third point on the list is... non-existent, really
Most languages like C or Java or Fortran don't really have a built-in reading direction - or I just don't see it. Still, they cannot really be considered "both-ways" as they lack the right-to-left way. There is no way to write a C program that looks like Forth. C just lacks the stack (a programmer-accessible stack, that is) - and with it a whole world of expressions and idioms.
And that is what I miss most in programming languages: Lisp and Forth. I want both of them. At the same time. In one language.
How hard can it be?
comments powered by Disqus