A case against standards

[Lynn H. Maxson]

I would normally steer clear about the possibility of an 
"ultimate" programming language.  As a proponent of a 
"universal" specification language with an understanding of 
language dynamics separating it from "ultimate" I will simply 
note that three pre-1970 programming languages--LISP, APL, 
and PL/I--among them contain more operators and data types 
than all other imperative programming languages combined.  If 
you synthesize these three using a PL/I syntax, PL/I exception 
handling, PL/I data types, PL/I data aggregates, APL operators 
and symbol set, and LISP list aggregate and operators, you 
have something close to a universal imperative language.  If 
you then upgrade it to a declarative while retaining all its 
imperative features, you have an even more universal 
specification language.  If it has the capability to specify itself, 
i.e. self-defining, it has the capability to extend itself, i.e. 
self-extensible, thus even more universal.

If it can do all these things, then it has the capability to 
reflect multiple standards based on the selected set of 
specifications in any use instance.  While its specification pool, 
the only source library, may contain conflicting specifications, 
every specification remains compatible.  Thus no need for a 
specific standard exists.  In the instance of any conflict in 
specifications detected by the software the user can select a 
non-conflicting subset or all of the conflicting subsets, 
allowing the software to produce all possible results.