🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <1990Aug10.131143.8898@canterbury.ac.nz>, by phys169@canterbury.ac.nz:
> [...]
> This isn't to mean one shouldn't be available, and doesn't mean one can't be
> produced. A language I and some other folks down here in NZ are working on,
> called NGL (part of eNGLish, and Nth Generation Language), attempts to be a
> universal language, by being dynamically redefinable. Further explanation:

Being dynamically redefinable is not necessarily a bad idea.  However, it
doesn't bring you closer to the concept of a universal language.  In fact,
it takes you further from it.  If you can dynamically redefine a language,
what you _really_ get is a _whole_lot_ of incompatible dialects at various
sites (or even - from one person to the next).  Ada programmers learned
early that being able to define new data types and operators was _not_ the
same as having those defined by the language directly.  For example, there
are a large number of different (and incompatible) versions of complex
numbers for Ada - users of the different versions have difficulty sharing
code or understanding each other's work.

Dynamic redefinition is only 'universal' in the same sense that a phonetic
alphabet is universal for natural languages.  Sure, you can express all
verbal communications in a phonetic alphabet, but that doesn't make the
different languages mutually comprehensible.  Similarly, you may be able
to express all programming styles in a dynamically redefinable language,
but that doesn't necessarily lead to mutual comprehension among programmers.

J. Giles