How big should a language vocabulary be?

Question

I started looking at the upcoming C++0x specification today, and I started thinking on what is the right size for a language vocabulary. Initially, it struck me as very annoying that new keywords were introduced. At some rough level, the number of keywords in a language is, I think, an estimate of its complexity. That is, in the case of C++, adding new constructs would make it even harder to master the language. Thats one reason why the K&R book is so much smaller that the C++ equivalent.

After that, I thought about natural languages, whose vocabulary has been shown to grow linearly with time, regardless of the language (*). The only exception is, of course, Newspeak, which says a lot. The vocabulary size in this case is related to the expressive power the language.

In programming languages, however, you can have very expressive languages with a small vocabulary size (ie, Lisp).

So, to phrase this is a question, what, in your opinion, should a language vocabulary be - big and verbose or small and concise?

Answer 1

I'm not convinced there is a real answer here. Smaller is my preference but I can't quantify what small really is. I'd prefer to see a lean set of operators with no redundancy in them. This like is and as in C# annoy me. They are too close in functionality. If and Unless in many languages are the same way. One can easily be constructed from the other.

I'm a big fan of Lisp which is quite minimal, but even there syntactic sugar exists (like ' instead of quote).

Answer 2

How big should a language vocabulary be?

42.

Answer 3

I like small languages with clear ways to extend it.

(someone wiki this)

Answer 4

Well, let's compare two languages - C++ and Smalltalk

• C++ - large number of reserved words, complex syntax, huge standards document

• Smalltalk - almost no reserved words, incredibly simple syntax, tiny standards document

Now look at the relative sucess of those languages. I think the conclusion is obvious - big is better.

Answer 5

I would say as few as possible while maximizing functionality. Exactly where to draw the line betwen consice and complexity is very subjective.

Answer 6

As big as necessary, but no bigger?

Anyway, your question misses an obvious point. Languages can be hideously complex without using a lot of keywords. As an example, look at the statickeyword in C++. It has what, 3, 4 different meanings? Does that make the language less complex than if they'd used 3 or 4 different keywords?