I think a reference to Guy Steele&#x27;s essay &#x27;Building a Language&#x27; is appropriate here:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cs.virginia.edu&#x2F;~evans&#x2F;cs655&#x2F;readings&#x2F;steele.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cs.virginia.edu&#x2F;~evans&#x2F;cs655&#x2F;readings&#x2F;steele.pdf</a><p>In a commentary on the essay, Scott Rosenberg says:<p>Plainly, Steele started out intending to show just how painful the words-of-one-syllable limit is — and, by extension, how desperately programmers need the ability to expand the vocabularies of languages that feel impoverished (“a thought that seems like a primitive in our minds turns out not to be a primitive in a programming language, and in each new program we must define it once more”). Yet what’s fascinating about “Growing a Language” is that the limits Steele imposed on his expression make the paper far more accessible, precise and clear than most computer-science writing.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wordyard.com&#x2F;2007&#x2F;06&#x2F;12&#x2F;steele-growing&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wordyard.com&#x2F;2007&#x2F;06&#x2F;12&#x2F;steele-growing&#x2F;</a>