1.<p>&gt; I also need a word about definitions. What do we mean by “more powerful” or “less powerful” languages? In this article, I mean something roughly like this: “the freedom and ability to do whatever you want to do”, seen mainly from the perspective of the human author entering data or code into the system. This roughly aligns with the concept of “expressiveness”, though not perhaps with a formal definition. (More formally, many languages have equivalent expressiveness in that they are all Turing complete, but we still recognize that some are more powerful in that they allow a certain outcome to be produced with fewer words or in multiple ways, with greater freedoms for the author).<p>I understand that adding<p>- automatic memory management
- exception handling
- object oriented facilities (polymorphism, inheritance)<p>make a language &quot;more powerful&quot; by allowing the programmer to think at a higher level. For me, this means the language gets out of the way and I can focus on the problem at hand, but everyone seems to have a different idea of what &quot;getting out of the way&quot; means and what constitutes the ideal &quot;default toolbox&quot; for a programming language.<p>For decades it was true that higher level meant more powerful meant a better default toolkit for the developer, but I resonate with the sentiment that a plateau has been reached in terms of designing the basic toolbox a languages makes available for the programmer.<p>A less powerful language means easier and more readily available tools to parse and manipulate programs written in that language, which leads me to...<p>2.<p>&gt; This happened to me recently, and set me off thinking just how ridiculously bad our toolsets are. Why on earth are we treating our highly structured code as a bunch of lines of text? I can&#x27;t believe that we are still programming like this, it is insane.<p>With all due respect, JavaScript as implemented in node.js or in Chrome is a brilliant language and is a fine environment for implementing a static code analyzer and transformer. The same is true of Python, Scheme, C, C++, Java, and many other modern programming languages. It takes relatively little code to to implement powerful tools to parse and manipulate source code when relatively few syntactic forms are accepted. See for example my autoclave.js project below.<p>The one Wikipedia article I come back to again and again is the &quot;Additional Example 1+1&quot; of <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;LR_parser" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;LR_parser</a><p>3.<p>There is a parallel between the instruction set architecture (ISA) of a chip and the syntactic forms that a programming language recognizes. One measure of the &quot;size&quot; of a language is the number of productions in the grammar definition. So I think of a &quot;highly expressive&quot; language with a complicated grammar as a &quot;CISC language&quot; and as you say a &quot;less powerful language&quot; as a &quot;RISC language&quot;. All other things being equal, it is easier and faster to implement a toolchain for a smaller language than for a larger one. This is why it is (or was, at any rate) reasonable to ask a first-year college student to implement a meta-circular interpreter in Scheme (MIT 6.001). This is not possible for most other languages (and it is certainly not possible in Python).<p>This project is just one attempt to carve out such a usable &quot;RISC language&quot; as a subset of JavaScript. If you have the time, I&#x27;d appreciate your feedback, thoughts, and suggestions. Thanks!<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;dbpokorny&#x2F;autoclave" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;dbpokorny&#x2F;autoclave</a>