Fluidity and complexity of programming languages

We have oodles of programming languages: Python, Java, C#, C++, and dozens more. We have tutorials. We have help pages. We have people who track the popularity of languages.

Almost all languages are fluid; their syntax changes. Some languages (COBOL, C++, Forth) change slowly. Other languages (Visual Basic, Java, C#) change more frequently.

Some languages are simple: C, Python, and Pascal come to mind. Others are complicated: COBOL, C++, and Ada are examples.

* * * * *

It strikes me that the languages with simple syntax are the languages with a single person leading the effort. Languages that were designed (and maintained) by an individual (or perhaps a pair of closely working individuals) tend to be simple. Python is lead by Guido van Rossum. Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth. C was designed by Kernighan and Ritchie. Eiffel was created by Bertrand Meyer.

In contrast, languages with complex syntax tend to be designed by committee. COBOL and Ada were designed by committee (for the federal government, no less!). C++, while a descendant of C, has a very complex syntax. While Bjarne Stroustrup did much of the work, the C++ standard committee had a lot of say in the final specification.

The one example of a complex language not designed by committee is Perl, which shows that this is a tendency, not an absolute.

* * * * *

It also strikes me that the languages which change are the proprietary languages developed and maintained by commercial companies. Languages such as Visual Basic, Java, and C# have changed rapidly over their lifetimes.

Languages developed by individuals do change, but slowly, and often by entities other than the original developers. BASIC (another simple language developed by Kemeny and Kurtz) was simple and later enhanced (made complex) by Microsoft. Pascal was simple and enhanced by Borland for their Turbo Pascal product. When Niklaus Wirth wanted to make changes to Pascal, he created the language Modula-2 (and later, Modula-3).

Programming languages designed by committee with strong standards (COBOL, Ada) tend to change slowly, due to the nature of committees.

* * * * *

Languages built within commercial entities need not be complex. They may start simple and grow into something complicated. Java and C# were both developed by individuals, and that initial simplicity shows through their current (more complex) design.

* * * * *

What can we expect in the future? I see little activity (or call for) committees to design languages. This is possibly a long-term risk, as committee-built languages, once adopted as standards, tend to be durable, stable, and cross-platform (COBOL, C++, Ada).

I do see individuals developing languages. Python and Ruby have strong followings. JavaScript is popular. I expect other individuals to create new languages for distributed computing. These languages will be simple, specific, and show little change over time.

I also see commercial vendors building languages. Apple recently introduced Swift. If they follow the trend for vendor-specific languages, we can expect changes to the Swift language, perhaps as often as every year (or with every release of MacOS or iOS). Microsoft is looking to build its cloud and mobile offerings; new versions of C# may be in the works. Oracle is working on Java; recent changes have fixed the code base and tools, new versions may change the language. Google is building Go and Dart languages. Can Google leverage them for advantage?

The Dart language is in an interesting position. It is a replacement for JavaScript and it compiles to JavaScript. It must remain simpler than JavaScript; if it becomes more complex, then programmers will simply use JavaScript instead of the harder Dart.

* * * * *

In short, I expect programming languages from vendors to change moderately rapidly. I expect programming languages from individuals to change less rapidly. Whether a programming language changes over time may affect your choice. You decide.