But I feel like all mainstream programming languages aren't truly "languages", they're mostly dialects of X, where "X" is a fusion of Lisp and C, i.e. same old ideas repackaged in different syntactic packaging.
How are "normal" languages not the same old ideas repackaged in different syntactic packaging? I'd say "dog" and "hond" aren't different ideas even though one is in English and the other in Dutch. They're just the same old ideas repackaged in different syntactic packages. Isn't that practically the definition of a language? Some things that take me a sentence to say in English can are only a few phonemes in Japanese, but does that mean Japanese isn't a real language because it's the same idea in a different syntax? I'd say syntactic difference is possibly the defining characteristic of a language.
Perhaps this is simply indicative that the term "language" is innapropriate to apply to a programming grammar.
How are "normal" languages not the same old ideas repackaged in different syntactic packaging? I'd say "dog" and "hond" aren't different ideas even though one is in English and the other in Dutch. They're just the same old ideas repackaged in different syntactic packages. Isn't that practically the definition of a language? Some things that take me a sentence to say in English can are only a few phonemes in Japanese, but does that mean Japanese isn't a real language because it's the same idea in a different syntax? I'd say syntactic difference is possibly the defining characteristic of a language.
Perhaps this is simply indicative that the term "language" is innapropriate to apply to a programming grammar.