Ask HN: Can someone explain to me why all languages don't try to have the same syntax?

Except that they don't. Almost everyone agrees about the relative precedence and associativity of the two argument forms of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, but that's about it.

And then there are the folks who think that multiplication is denoted by a space. They call themselves mathematicians. Don't they know that space is concatenation or ignored?

> One reason is the inherent complexity of a parser for a full programming language.

For some full programming languages maybe. Other languages are so easy to parse that they added support for roman numerals, turing-complete read macros, and other things.

> It turns out that it's fairly easy to confuse a parser, because they're just not as good as human beings at correctly interpreting the "intent" of a statement.

It turns out that people aren't all that good either - they're subject to a 7+/-2 rule. Plus, very few people can reliably remember 10 levels of operator precedence.

> Most languages don't have a reason for being unless they introduce a bunch of unique constructs; and they're lucky if their own constructs can be parsed unambiguously.

Huh? Apart from some nastiness involving > when C++ templates were introduced, how many programming languages have ambiguous parsings? (Yes, many parse things in ways that some humans find "unintuitive", but that's different.)

The real question would be whether that AST syntax would be better than the language's own syntax. I'm guessing it would be harder to read, since a good syntax for an AST would describe only the semantics of the tree, making it harder to pick out the structure of the language itself.

This strikes me as a bizarre statement. What's more universal than "echo" and "$", which are found in nearly every UNIX shell? UNIX has always been the backbone OS of the Internet, thus a language designed specifically for that purpose would naturally bring along some of those conventions common to administrators experience. (Technically, it probably happened this way in PHP because of the restraints of the way PHP began, but that's not to say $ and echo wouldn't have been natural choices, even if PHP had been more ambitious early on.)

There are many things to complain about in PHP, but these two conventions were not invented for or by the PHP developers.

I get your point, of course...but when you use examples like this, picking on what is very likely the most popular language in the world for developing web applications, it just makes me think you're really saying, "Why does PHP suck?"

Why doesn't Ruby use PHP syntax? After all, if we're going to agree on syntax, shouldn't the one that the largest number of people are already fluent in be the one we choose? Should we go back to earlier languages? Should Python have gone with C-like syntax, like Perl, since C syntax is far more common? Who decides what the right syntax is for all languages to converge on?

I think I have to conclude your question is invalid.