Remove complex and imaginary types?

[John Reimer]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:38:44 +0200, Georg Wrede wrote:
>> Getting rid of them will release 6 keywords, and make the core language
>> simpler.
> 
> Now, this is the one subject that gets me downright ballistic. During
> the (some six) years I've been a part of D, I have constantly had a
> problem with this keyword number issue.
> 
> I've studied languages, I've taught Computer Programming for years at
> University Level, and, to this day, I haven't got a compelling answer to
> "why less keywords is Better, "Even at the cost of confusing any or all
> of the students of a particular language"".
> 
> I've also studied Natural Languages (as in Finnish, Swedish, English,
> German, Spanish, Russian, French), and during those years, I've gotten a
> fair idea of the relation of the number of words versus the number of
> concepts, and how these relate to the understandability and learning
> speed of them.
> 
> As a result of this all, I'm definitely of the opinion that "one concept
> warrants one word", and that "the same word for different purposes is
> poison", and that "the same concept with different words is poison".
> 
> (Do I have to say "const", anybody???")
> 

Wow... I've had the same feelings (without the experiences, however), but 
you elucidated a thought I've had in my mind for awhile about the "too 
many keywords" problem. I wasn't sure how to express it, nor do I really 
have the language background to make the argument stronger.

It seems to me that the languages (computer or natural) with more 
vocabulary are more expressive in describing an exact thought.  Whereas 
simpler languages seem prone to use many context sensitive words that 
could only express complete thoughts with laborious diatribe (such is the 
result of limited vocabulary, I suppose, in any language).  

The advantage of reduced vocabulary is lost when simplicity of vocabulary 
causes a complexity of volume (and possibly ambiguity).  There is a risk, 
therefore, of communication being lost.  

Whereas, increased vocabulary seems to simplify the sentence at the 
expense of comprehension (the issuer and receiver must memorize more 
words and understand more meanings).  Once again, there's a another risk 
of the communication being lost.

So, which is the worse evil?  When it comes to natural languages, there 
are thousands of words to memorize, and developing a vocabulary is a 
constant challenge for language learners.  In the case of computer 
languages, the keyword vocabulary is a minuscule fraction of the natural 
language, so it would seem unreasonable for us to worry about such 
additions, especially if they improve the languages ability to express 
exact meaning.  But this is hardly original thought when it comes to 
language design, I'm sure.  For those that have studied language design, 
I imagine this is probably one of the first things discussed.

I'm not sure if I'm babbling on with this, but I just wanted to voice 
some sort of agreement with Georg's take on this.  

-JJR