Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: gah4 Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Programming language similarity Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT) Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 25 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <22-04-020@comp.compilers> References: <22-04-012@comp.compilers> <22-04-016@comp.compilers> <22-04-019@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="56753"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: design, history Posted-Date: 25 Apr 2022 18:57:01 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com In-Reply-To: <22-04-019@comp.compilers> Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2986 On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:54:58 PM UTC-7, Derek Jones wrote: (snip) > What makes somebody choose a particular set of symbols. > My guess is that their past experience is a major factor, > i.e., the use of symbols they had previously been exposed to. Early Fortran was limited by the number of characters available on the IBM 026 keypunch. They redefined some of the punch codes with different symbols for scientific use, as that was easier than designing a whole new machine. Much of that was then fixed with EBCDIC in S/360, where an 8 bit code allowed, and pretty much required, that they be separated. In any case, the characters (with new punches) were kept. (And new compilers have an option to accept the old punch codes.) I do remember punching ALGOL programs on the 026, where you had to use the multipunch key, along with big charts on the wall, to get the needed characters. In any case, character set limitations stay with us long after the reason for the limitation has gone.