"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote
> That is just plain wrong. There are very simple languages with many
> keywords, and extremely complex ones with very few (counting symbols as
> keywords...there are languages that rely on symbols alone).

I second that.

Probably, the best example ever existed is Tcl vs. Perl. These two languages
have not only comparable number of keywords, they even share some keywords,
and yet there exists *vast* difference in complexity. While the former is
very simple (by its underlying principles, with its strings; much like LISP
with its 'pairs'), the latter is considered a 'write-only' language even by
its die-hard adepts. Please note: I'm telling *nothing* about these
languages' powers :-) Follow-ups to povray.flame-wars.

Post a reply to this message