Related
Is there any reason why the command until was implemented into bash/shell (I'm still unsure which)? Is there anything you can't do with a negation on a while statement? Is it faster than using the NOT CPU function? - unlikely...
Bash supports it because it conforms to POSIX - specifically, IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 Edition - Shell Command Language - The until Loop. The feature predates GNU, and GNU bash repo has it since the 1st commit 21 years ago.
As Guillaume also explains in another answer, the rationale behind the feature was (a misguided attempt at) readability. They tried to micromanage things here because shell language was initially targeted at end users rather than professional programmers (like BASIC and SQL).
However, such redundant syntax that does exactly the same thing at the same code complexity proved to be more trouble than it's worth: by providing two, rather than one, canonical forms for a stock construct, it actually hurt readability rather than improve it and introduced unnecessary decisions to make1. That's why it's only present in a few languages designed around that time and likewise intended to be "close to natural language" - like Perl and Visual Basic.
Nowadays, this approach has evolved into the syntax sugar concept2: a redundant construct is only introduced if it significantly simplifies code by replacing an entire boilerplate construct that is used sufficiently often. C# is a good example of this.
1"which one to use here? change it when I change the condition or not? why do I even care?" From my experience, it's the same in Pascal procedures vs functions: I remember having to switch a subroutine between these two multiple times as I design the code. It simply imposes redundant work on the programmer, thus wasting their time.
2I narrow down the term here because I'm expressing things from a language designer's point of view. It's rather "what is now considered good syntax sugar". Since from a language designer's POV, any other SS effectively doesn't exist.
Everything you can do with until can be done with while. Your code may be 1 character shorter thanks to this “optimization” and some interpreters may be slightly faster but it would be ridiculously insignificant compared to the rest to the code.
As far as I know this statement mostly exists because some languages have it so it’s a bit easier to port from a language to bash. But as of today (2017) I think the overwhelming majority of languages support the while statement and very few support until. I would recommend using exclusively while so that other programmers who read your code won’t waste time asking themselves what until does.
Not to mention some languages have a until statement which is executed at the end of the loop (instead of the beginning), which would bring a lot of unnecessary confusion.
The reason for such statement is not so much technical (indeed, a inverted while would have the same meaning) but semantic.
until (condition) {do something}
can be closer to natural language than
while (not condition) {do something}
This is especially true when the condition itself is expressed as a negative, as reading multiple negations does not flow as neatly:
while (not not_connected) {}
vs
until (not_connected) {}.
I wonder can anyone explain the design rationale behind the following features of autolisp / visual lisp? To me they seem to fly in the face of accepted software practice ... am I missing something?
All variables are global by default (ie unless placed after a / in the function arguments)
Reading/writing data from autocad requires putting stuff into an association list with lots of magic numbers. 10 means x/y coordinates, 90 means length of the coordinate list, 63 means colour, etc. Ok you could store these in some constants but that would mean yet more globals, and the documentation encourages you to use the magic numbers directly.
Lisp is a functional-style language, which encourages programming by recursion over iteration, but tail recursion is afaik not optimised in visual lisp leading to horrendous call stacks - unless, of course you iterate. But loop syntax is very restrictive; e.g. you can't break out of or return a value from a loop unless you put some kind of flag in the termination condition. Result, ugly code.
Generally you are forced to declare variables all over the place which flies in the face of functional programming - so why use a functional(-ish) language?
Lisp isn't a language, it's a group of sometimes surprisingly different languages. Scheme and Clojure are the functional members of the family. Common Lisp, and the more specialized breeds like Elisp aren't particularly functional and don't inherently encourage functional programming or recursion. CL in fact includes a very flexible object system, an extremely flexible iteration DSL, and doesn't guarantee optimized tail calls (Scheme dialects do, but not Lisps in general; that's the pitfall in thinking of "Lisp" as a single language).
Now that we have that cleared up, AutoLisp is an implementation from 1986 based on an early version of XLISP (the earliest of which was published in 1983).
The reason that it might fly in the face of currently accepted programming practice is that it predates currently accepted programming practice. Another thing to keep in mind is that the cheapest netbook available today is several hundred times more powerful than what a programmer could expect to have access to back in the mid 80s. Meaning that even if a given feature was accepted to be excellent, CPU or memory constraints may have prevented its implementation in a commercial language.
I've never programmed in Autolisp/Visual Lisp specifically, and the stuff you cite sounds bloody annoying, but it may have had some performance/memory advantage that justified it at the time.
If I remember correctly, AutoLisp is a fork from an early version of XLisp (some sources claim it was XLisp 1.0 (see this C2 article).
XLisp 1.0 is a 1-cell lisp (functions and variables share the same name-space) with some rather odd oddities to it.
You can add dynamic scoping into the mix btw, and if you don't know what it is consider yourself lucky. But actually not all your four points are that big of a deal IMO:
"Undeclared vars are created automatically as global." Same as in CL is it not (via setq)? The other option is to fail, and that's not a very attractive one for the language which is supposed to be used for quick-n-dirty scripting.
"magic numbers" are DXF-codes, which you're right are major inconvenience as they tend to change with the changing ACAD versions sometimes (thankfully, rarely). That's just how it is. Fixing it would require a major overhaul, introducing some "schemas" and what not, and why would "they" bother? AutoLISP was left in its state as of 1992 approximately, and never bothered with since. Visual LISP itself is entirely different and much more capable system, but it is all locked out for the regular user, and only made to serve one goal - to emulate the old AutoLISP as faithfully as possible (except where it added new VBA-related features in the later half of the 1990s, and was locked since then too).
(while (not done) ...) is not that ugly. There's no tail optimization guarantee, yes, just as there isn't one in CL and Haskell (that last one really stumbles me - there's no guaranteed way to encode a loop in Haskell in constant space without monads - how about that?).
"you're forced to declare vars all over the place" here I do not follow you. You declare them were you supposed to declare them - in the function's internal arguments list. What other places do you mean? I don't know of any.
In reality the biggest stumbling block of AutoLISP is its dynamic name resolution IMO, but that's how it was in Xlisp, only few years after Scheme first came out. Then also it's its immutable data store, but that was done mainly for simplicity of implementation, and to prevent too much confusion and hence questions, from the user base, I guess.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why functional languages?
I began programming with C/C++, VB, and eventually Python - all imperative languages. I took a course about programming languages and learned my first functional language - OCaml. It was terrible.
Syntax and other horrors aside, OCaml took my imperative thought process and threw it out the window. It was frustrating. I insisted that everything that could be done functionally could also be done imperatively. I thought of functional programming as imperative programming without a limb (side effects). In response to my frustration, the only benefit my professor could come up with was an FPL's ability to parallelize side-effect-free functions.
Anyways, enough talk.
What are some advantages that FPLs offer above IPLs?
Is there anything that can easily be done in an FPL that cannot easily be done in an IPL?
Are there any real-world examples of FPLs in use, or do they mostly serve as academic exercises? (When I say real-world, I mean a project that heavily relies on the functional aspect of the language and doesn't cram an FPL into a scenario where it doesn't belong).
Thanks,
Advait
First of all, almost any language in common use today is equivalent in expressive power, be it imperative or functional, so it's natural to think that anything you can do in a functional language you can probably do in an imperative one, because it's probably true.
One of the really nice things about functional languages is that their structure permits the application of Hindley-Milner type inference. This is the type system used in SML, OCaml and a bunch of other functional languages. It genuinely seems to lead to reduced rates of errors and is capable of saving you a lot of time and energy by finding bugs up-front as compile errors.
The automatic parallelisation argument is a bit over-used, especially because the promise simply hasn't eventuated. I have written explicitly parallel code in functional languages and it is nicer, IMHO, than doing something similar in Java or the like.
Anecdotally at least, I wouldn't be the first person to claim that learning a functional language makes you a better imperative programmer! That discomfort you felt in having your "imperative" thought process interrupted when using OCaml is actually a really good process to go through. It makes you question assumptions and stops you from writing code in a particular way just because you have always done it that way.
As for real-world use, you might like to look at the proceedings of the Commercial Users of Functional Programming workshops. There are also some very large projects written in various functional languages, although most of them are probably of limited interest outside fairly small communities. The theorem provers Coq and Isabelle are written in Ocaml and SML, respectively.
Whatever you do, I would persevere. I spent a long time banging my head against ML before things finally clicked. These days I'm not sure I even remember how Java or C work, because I haven't had a need for them in a long time... I just use ML!
When one finally manages to silence his imperativelly (mis)trained mind, FP actually becomes easier and more fun than IP.
FP tends to be safer, less bug prone, due to its declarative nature.
I like to think that parallelising imperative code doubles its complexity (try yourself with a non-trivial parallel app). IMO, FP reduces the gap a lot, thanks to lack of syncronisation in many cases.
Citing Gian, learning FP make you a wiser imperative programmer...
You can read http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Look, for example at AppleScript (and there are plenty of others, some admittedly quite good) which advertise their use of the natural language metaphor. Code is apparently more readable because it can be/is intended to be constructed in English-like sentences, says they. I'm sure there are people who would like nothing better than to program using only English sentences. However, I have doubts about the viability of a language that takes that paradigm too far (excepting niche cases).
So, after a certain reasonable point, is natural-languaginess a benefit or a misfeature? What if the concept is carried to an extreme -- will code necessarily be more readable? Or might it be unnecessarily long, difficult to work with, and just as capable of producing hilarity on the scale of obfuscated Perl, obfuscated C, and eye-twisting Bash script logorrhea?
I am aware of some specialty cases like "Inform" that are almost pure English, but these have a niche that they're not likely to venture out from. I hear and read about how great it would be for code to read more like English sentences, but are there discussions of the possible disadvantages? If everyday language is so clear, simple, clean, lovely, concise, understandable, why did we invent mathematical notation in the first place?
Is it really easier to describe complex instructions accurately and precisely to a machine in natural language, or isn't something closer to mathematical markup a much better choice? Where should that line be drawn? And finally, are you attracted to languages that are touted as resembling English sentences? Should this whole question have just been a one liner:
naturalLanguage > computerishLanguage ? booAndHiss : cheerLoudly;
Well, of course, natural languages are rarely clear, simple, clean, lovely, concise, understandable which is one of the reasons that most programming is done in languages far from natural.
My answer to this would be that the ideal programming language lies somewhere between a natural language and a very formal language.
On the one extreme, there's the formal, minimal, mathematical languages. Take for example Brainfuck:
,>++++++[<-------->-],[<+>-]<. // according to Wikipedia, this means addition
Or, what's somewhat preferable to the above mess, any type of lambda calculus.
λfxy.x
λfxy.y
This is one possible way of expressing the Boolean truth values in lambda calculus. Doesn't look very neat, especially when you build logical operators (such as AND being e.g. λpq.pqp) around them.
I claim that most people could not write production code in such a minimalistic, hard-to-grasp language.
The problem on the other end of the spectrum, namely natural languages as they are spoken by humans, is that languages with too much complexity and flexibility allows the programmer to express vague and indefinite things that can mean nothing to today's computers. Let's take this sample program:
MAYBE IT WILL RAIN CATS AND DOGS LATER ON. WOULD YOU LIKE THIS, DEAR COMPUTER?
IF SO, PRINT "HELLO" ON THE SCREEN.
IF YOU HATE RAIN MORE THAN GEORGE DOES, PRINT SOME VAGUE GARBAGE INSTEAD.
(IN THE LATTER CASE, IT IS UP TO YOU WHERE YOU OUTPUT THAT GARBAGE.)
Now this is an obvious case of vagueness. But sometimes you would get things wrong with more reasonable natural language programs, such as:
READ AN INTEGER NUMBER FROM THE TERMINAL.
READ ANOTHER INTEGER NUMBER FROM THE TERMINAL.
IF IT IS LARGER THAN ZERO, PRINT AN ERROR.
Which number is IT referring to? And what kind of error should be printed (you forgot to specify it.) — You would have to be really careful to be extremely explicit about what you mean.
It's already too easy to mis-understand other humans. How do you expect a computer to do better?
Thus, a computer language's syntax and grammar has to be strict enough so that it doesn't allow ambiguity. A statement must evaluate in a deterministic way. (There are maybe corner cases; I'm talking about the general case here.)
I personally prefer languages with a very limited set of keywords. You can quickly learn such a language, and you don't have to choose between 10,000 ways of achieving one goal simply because there's 10,000 keywords for doing the same thing (as in: GO/WALK/RUN/TROD/SLEEPWALK/etc. TO THE FRIDGE AND GET ME A BEER!). It means if you need to think about 10,000 different ways of doing something, it won't be due to the language, but due to the fact that there are 9,999 stupid ways to do it, and 1 elegant solution that just shines more than all the others.
Note that I wrote all natural language examples in upper-case. That's because I sort of had good old GW-BASIC and COBOL in mind while I wrote this. There've been some examples of programming languages that lean on natural language, and I think history has shown that they are, in general, somewhat less widespread than e.g. terse C-style languages.
I recently read that according to Gartner there are over 400 billion lines of COBOL source code in active use worldwide today.
That doesn't prove anything other than that banks and governments are fond of their legacy code, but you could construe it as a testament to the success of English-like programming languages. I'm not aware of any other programming language that is so close to English and so verbose.
Aside from that, I tend to agree with the other respondents: Programmers prefer not to type so much, and in general a language based on mathematics-like shorthand is both more expressive and more precise than one based on English.
There's a point where terse, expressive code looks like line noise. Perl, APL and J come to mind as examples with "illegible one-liners." Programmers are humans, and it may be beneficial to leave them with some similarity to natural language to give their brains something familiar to hold on to. Thus, I propagate a happy medium that's reminiscent of but not too close to natural language.
"When a programming language is created that allows programmers to program in simple English, it will be discovered that programmers cannot speak English." ~ Unknown
In my (not so) humble opinion, no.
Natural language is full of ambiguities. Normally we do not think of them because humans can easily disambiguate them, based on many criteria often unavailable to the computer. First off we have knowledge about the world (elephants don't fit in pajamas), but also we use more senses than just hearing when we speak to each other, body language to name one. The intonation and manner things are said with also helps alot to disambiguate. It is harder to catch irony or sarcasm in written text, which is more or less a transcription of what we would say, more in the case IM less in the case of well written articles. In general there is loads and loads of ambiguity in natural language, for instance where the PPs, prepositional phrases attach:
"Workers [dumped [sacks [with flour]]]"
"Workers [dumped [sacks] [with a fork-lift]]]"
Any human immediatly tells where the PP will attach, its reasonable to have sacks with flour in them, and its reasonable to use a fork-lift to dump something. Another very troublesome area is the word "and" which messes up the grammar horrendously, or all the references we use, the pronouns in general, but also more complex references, ie. "Bill bought a Dodge Viper, sadly the car was a lemon".
So we have three options, keep the ambiguities in and try to deal with them, accepting very many errors in disambiguation and very very slow parsing, no LALR or LL will work here, or try to make an artifical grammar resembling natural language, and keeping it deterministic, which is more reasonable but still horrible. We now have a language that falsely resembles English, but it isn't which is confusing. We have none of the benefits of a proper syntax and none of the benefits of natural language, but an oversized overwordly monstrum, with a diffcult and unintuitive grammar, diffcult to learn and slow to write.
The third way is realizing we need a succinct way of expressing ourselves, which can also be processed by a computer, not resembling any natural language, but focusing on being an unambigous description of an algorithm. This will increase the readability, especially if we compare to a very precise natural language counter part. This is why many people prefer to also read the pseudo-code when dealing with difficult problems or advanced algorithms, it relieves us of the trouble with dealing with ambiguities, and is more optimal for expressing computer instructions.
The issue isn't so much that it's easier to describe complex ideas using one approach or the other, but it certainly is easier understanding machine languages (at least for machines). The biggest issue is, as always, ambiguity. Computers are terrible at understand it, so most grammars for programming languages need to be constructed to either remove all ambiguity, or the general language must be constructed so that ambiguity isn't actually a problem (this is tricky).
Any programming language that allows for ambiguity would be terribly error prone; and any natural language that doesn't allow ambiguity would be terribly verbose and convoluted (I'm looking at you, Lojban [ok, maybe Lojban isn't so bad‚ still…]).
The propensity some people show for preferring natural languages for programming languages might essentially root out in the desire to eventually be able to input a physics textbook into a parser, whereupon it'll do your homework when asked.
Of course, that's not to say that programming languages shouldn't have hints of natural language: Especially for OOP it makes good sense to have calling grammar resemble natural grammar, like in Obj-C, which is sort of a game of mad libs:
[pot makeCoffee:strong withSugar:NO];
Doing the same in BrainFuck would be, well, a brainfuck, three full pages of code to flip a switch will do that to you.
In essensce; the best languages are (probably) the ones that resemble natural languages, without pretending to be one. (Avoiding the uncanny valley of programming languages, [if there is such a thing] if you will. [Subclauses! Yay!])
A natural language is too ambiguous to be used as programming language. It has to be artificially constrained to eliminate ambiguities.
But it defeats the purpose of having a "natural" programming language, because you have its verbosity and none of its advantages in expressibility.
I think the fourth language I coded professionally in (after Fortran, Pascal and Cobol) was Natural. Which is a pretty obscure 4GL of 1980's vintage for developing mainframe systems against an ADABAS database.
Called Natural I believe because it had pretensions to be so. Supposedly management-readable like cobol, but minus the fluff.
Which should tell you that attempts at 'Natural' programming languages have a commercial history of over 30 years now (more if you count cobol) but they have pretty much lost out to languages that don't pretend to be 'natural' but do allow the programmer to define the problem succinctly. When I first started coding the 1GL -> 2GL -> 3GL evolution wasn't that old and the progression to 4GL (defined then as a more english-like programming languages) for mainstream work seem an obvious next step. It hasn't worked out that way. If anything getting up to speed with coding now has got harder because there's more abstract concepts to learn.
SQL was designed with natural language in mind originally. Fortunately it hasn't held on too tightly to this and advances since its conception are less "naturalistic".
But anybody that has tried to write a complicated query in SQL will tell you that its not that easy. You have worry about the range of some keywords over your query. You have this incredibly hard to understand query, that does some crazy shit, but you re-write it every time you need to change something because its easier.
Natural language programming is a bad idea. the further you get from assembly, the more mistakes you can make, not in terms of logical errors or anything like that, but in terms of having the wrong assumption about how the script interpreter/bytecode intepreter/compiler makes your code run on the CPU.
Is seems to be a great feature for beginners, or people who program as a "secondary activity". But I doubt you could reach the complexity and polyvalence of actual programming languages with natural language.
If there was a programming language that actually adhered to all of the conventions of the natural language it mimics, then that would be fantastic.
In reality, however, a lot of so-called "natural" programming languages have far stricter syntax than English, which means that although they are easily readable, it is debatable whether they are actually all that easy to write.
What makes sense in English is often a syntax error in AppleScript.
Everyday language isn't so clear, simple, clean, lovely, concise and understandable - to a computer. However, to a human, readability counts for a lot, and the closer you get to a natural language, the easier it is to read. That's why we're not all using assembly language.
If you have a completely natural language, there are a lot of things that need to be handled - the sentence needs to be parsed, each word must be understood - and there is plenty of room for ambiguity. That's generally not a good thing for a programming language, because then we're venturing into psychic programming - the computer has to figure out what you were thinking, which is not at all easy to get.
However, if you can make something sufficiently close to natural language - and yes, Inform 7 is probably the best example - so sentences look natural, but still have some structure you need to follow - then the code is almost instantly readable, even to people that don't know the language. There's usually also less specialized syntax to remember - because you're really just talking (a slightly modified form of) English - but if you have to do something out of the ordinary, then you might have to jump through some hoops to do that.
In practice, most languages don't bother with this, because that makes it easier for them to allow you to be precise. However, some will still hover closer to the "natural language". This can be a good thing: if you have to translate some pseudocode algorithm to a language, you don't need to manipulate it as much to make it work, reducing the risk that you make an error in the translation.
As an example, let's compare C and Pascal. This Pascal code:
for i := 1 to 10 do begin
j := j + 1;
end;
is equivalent to this C code:
for (i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
j = j + 1;
}
If you had no prior knowledge of either syntax, the Pascal version is generally going to be simpler to read, if only because it's not as complex as a C for.
Let's also consider operators. Pascal and C both share +, - and *. They also both have /, but with different semantics: In C, / does an integer division if both operands are integers; in Pascal, it always does a "real" division and uses div for integer division. That means that you have to take the types into account when figuring out what actually happens in that line of code.
C also has a bunch of other operators: &&, ||, &, |, ^, <<, >> - in Pascal, those operators are instead named and, or, and, or, xor, shl, shr. Instead of relying on some semi-arbitrary sequence of characters, it's spelled out more. It's instantly obvious that xor is - well, XOR - unlike the C version, where there's no obvious correlation between ^ and XOR.
Of course, this is to some degree a matter of opinion: I much prefer a Pascal-like syntax to a C-like syntax, because I think it's more readable, but that doesn't mean everyone else does: A more natural language is usually going to be more verbose, and some people simply dislike that extra level of verbosity.
Basically, it's a matter of choosing what makes the most sense for the problem domain: if the problem domain is very limited (like with Inform), then a natural language makes perfect sense. If it's a very generic domain (like with C), then you either need far more advanced processing than we are currently capable of, or a lot of verbosity to fill in the details - and in that case, you have to choose a balance depending on what sort of users will be using the languages (for regular people, you need more naturalness, for people who know programming, they're usually comfortable enough with less natural languages and will prefer something closer to that end).
I think the question is, who reads and who writes the application code in question? I think, regardless of the language or architecture, a trained software developer should be writing the code, and analyze the code as bugs arise.
In the context of programming language discussion/comparison, what does the term "power" mean?
Does it have a well defined meaning? Even a poorly defined meaning?
Say if someone says "language X is more powerful than language Y" or asks the same as a question, what do they mean - or what information are they trying to find out?
It does not have a well-defined meaning. In these types of discussions, "language X is more powerful than language Y" usually means little more than "I like language X more than language Y." On the other end of the spectrum, you'll also usually have someone chime in about how any Turing-complete language can accomplish the same tasks as any other Turing-complete language, so that neither is strictly more powerful than the other.
I think a good meaning for it is expressivity. When a language is highly expressive, it means less code is required to express concepts. To me, this doesn't just mean that you have to write less code to accomplish the same tasks, but also that the code is easily readable by humans. Of course, generally (to a point), having fewer lines of code to read makes the task of reading and understanding easier for humans.
Having a "powerful" standard library comes into play here along the same lines. If a language comes equipped with thorough, complete libraries, then idiomatic code in that language will be able to benefit from the existing library code and not have to repeat or reinvent common functionality in application code. The end result is, again, having to write and read less code to accomplish the same tasks.
I keep saying "generally" and "to a point", because once a language gets too terse, it gets more difficult for humans to decipher. I suppose at this extreme, a language may still be considered "more powerful" (or even "too powerful"). So I guess I'm saying my personal interpretation of "powerful" includes some aspects of "useful" and "readable" in it as well.
C is powerful, because it is low level and gives you access to hardware. Python is powerful because you can prototype quickly. Lisp is powerful because its REPL gives you fantastic debugging opportunities. SQL is powerful because you say what you want and the DMBS will figure out the best way to do it for you. Haskell is powerful because each function can be tested in isolation. C++ is powerful because it has ten times the number of syntactic constructs that any one person ever needs or uses. APL is powerful since it can squeeze a ten-screen program into ten characters. Hell, COBOL is powerful because... why else would all the banks be using it? :)
"Powerful" has no real technical meaning, but lots of people have made proposals.
A couple of the more interesting ones:
Paul Graham wants to call a language "more powerful" if you can write the same programs in fewer lines of code (or some other sane, sensible measure of program size).
Matthias Felleisen has written a very serious theoretical study called On the Expressive Power of Programming Language.
As someone who knows and uses many programming languages, I believe that there are real differences between languages, and that "power" can be a convenient shorthand to describe ways in which one language might be better than another. Nevertheless, whenever I hear a discussion or claim that one language is more powerful than another, I tend to keep one hand firmly on my wallet.
The only meaningful way to describe "power" in a programming language is "can do what I require with the least amount of resources" where "resources" is defined as "whatever costs I'd rather not pay" and could, thus, be development time, CPU time, memory space, money, etc.
So basically the definition of "power" is purely subjective and rendered meaningless in any objective discussion.
Powerful means "high in power". "Power" is something that increases your ability to do things. "Things" vary in shape, size and other things. Loosely speaking therefore, "powerful" when applied to a programming language means that it helps you to do perform your tasks quickly and efficiently.
This makes "powerful" somewhat well defined but not constant across domains. A language powerful in one domain might be crippling in another eg. C is very powerful if you want to do systems level programming since it gives you direct access to the machine and hardware and structures that let you code much faster than you would in assembly. C compilers also produce tight code that runs fast. However, once you move to web applications, C can become very "unpowerful" and crippling since it's so much effort to get something up and running and you have to worry about a lot of extraneous details like memory etc.
Sometimes, languages are "powerful" in multiple domains. This gives them a general "powerful" tag (or badge since were are on SO here). PG's claim is that with LISP, this is the case. That might be true or might not be.
At the end of the day, "powerful" is a loaded word so you should evaluate who is saying it, why he's saying it and what it means to to your work.
There are really only two meanings people are worried about:
"Powerful" in the sense of "takes less resources (time, money, programmers, LOC, etc.) to achieve the same/better result", and "powerful" in the sense of "is capable of doing a wide range of tasks".
Some languages are extrememly resource-effective for a small range of tasks. Others are not so resource-effective but can be applied to a wide range of tasks (e.g. C, which is often used in OS development, creation of compilers and runtime libraries, and work with microcontrollers).
Which of these two meanings someone has in mind when they use the term "powerful" depends on the context (and even then is not always clear). Indeed often it is a bit of both.
Typically there are two distinct meanings:
Expressive, meaning the code tends to be very short and understandable
Low level, meaning you have very fine-grained control over the hardware.
For the most languages, these two definitions are at opposite ends of the spectrum: Python is very expressive but not very low level; C is very low level but not very expressive. Depending on which definition you pick, either language is powerful or not powerful.
nothing absolutely nothing.
To high level programmers it might mean alot of available datatypes built in. Or maybe abstractions to easily create or follow Design Patterns.
Paul Graham is a very high level guy here is what he has to say:
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
Java guys might tell you something about portability, the power to reach every platform.
C/UNIX programmers may tell you that its speed and efficiency, complete control over every inch of memory.
VHDL/Verilog programmers will tell you its complete control over every clock and gate so as to not waste any electricity or time.
But in my opinion a "powerful language" supports all of the features for you to complete your task. Documentation may be important, or perhaps it is portability, or the ability to do graphics. It could be anything, writing a gui from Assembly is just stupid, so is trying to design an embedded processor in flash.
Choosing a language that suits your needs perfectly will always feel like power.
I view the term as marketing fluff, no one well-defined meaning.
If you consider, say, Assembler, C, and C++. On occasions one drops from C++ "down" to C for particualr needs, and in turn from C down to assembler. So that make assembler the most powerful because it's the only language that can do everything. Or, to argue the other way, a single line of C++ code can replace several of C (hiding polymorphic dispatch via function pointers for example) and a single line of C replaces many of assembler. So C++ is more powerful because one line does "more".
I think the term had some currency when products such as early databases and spreadsheets had in-built languages, some quite restricted. So vendors would tout their language as being "powerful" because it was less restricted.
It can have several meanings. In the very basic sense there's power as far as what is computable. In that sense the most powerful languages are Turing Complete which includes pretty much every general purpose programming language (as opposed to most markup languages and domain specific languages which are often not Turing complete).
In a more pragmatic sense it often refers to how concisely (and readably) you can do certain things. Basically how easy is it to do certain tasks in one language compared to another.
What language is more powerful (besides being somewhat subjective) depends heavily on what you're trying to do. If your requirements are to get something running on a small device with 64k of memory you're likely not going to be using Java. Most likely the right language would be C or C++ (or if you're really hard core assembly). If you need a very simple CRUD app done in 1 day, maybe something like Ruby On Rails would be the way to go (I know Rails is a framework and Ruby is the language, but these days what libraries and frameworks are available factor greatly into picking a language)
I think that, perhaps coincidentally, the physics definition of power is relevant here: "The rate at which work is performed."
Of course, a toaster does not perform very quickly the work of putting out fires. Similarly, the power of a programming language is not universal, but specific to the domain or task to which it is being applied. C is a powerful language for writing device drivers or implementations of higher-level languages; Python is a powerful language for writing general-purpose applications; XPath is a powerful language for writing queries on structured data sets.
So given a problem domain, the power of a language can be said to be the rate at which a competent programmer is able to use it to solve problems in that domain.
A precise answer can be tried to reach, by not assuming that the elements that define "powerful" (in the context of languages) come from so many dimensions.
See how many could be, and a lot will be missing:
runtime speed
code size
expressiveness
supported paradigms
development / debugging time
domain specialization
standard libs
codebase
toolchain ecosystem
portability
community
support / documentation
popularity
(add more here)
These and more parameters draw together X picture of how "programming in some language" would be like at X level. That will be only the definition, though, the only real knowledge comes with the actual practice of using the language, but i digress.
The question comes down to which parameter will represent the intrinsic quality of a language. If you refer to a language in itself, its ultimate, intrinsic purpose is "express things", and thus the most representative parameter is rightfully expressiveness, and is also one that resonates frequently when someone talks about how powerful a language is.
At the moment you try to widen the question/answer to cover more than the expressiveness of the language "as a language, as a tongue", you are more talking about different kinds of "environment", social environment, development environment, commercial environment, etc.
Depending of the complexity of the environment to be defined you'll have to mix more parameters that come from multiple, vast, overlapping and sometimes contradictory dimensions, and eventually the point of getting the definition will be lost or the question will have to be narrowed.
This approximation still won't answer "what is an expressive language", but, again, a common understanding are the definitions that Vineet well points out in its answer, and Forest remarks in the comments. I agree, for me "expression" is "conveying meaning".
I remember many instructors in college calling whatever language they were teaching "powerful".
Leads me to think:
Powerful = a relative term comparing the latest way to code something vs. the original or previous way.
I find it useless to use the word "powerful" in regards to discussing anything software related. Every time my professor in college would introduce a new concept such as polymorphism he would say "so this is a really powerful feature". After a while I got annoyed. If everything is powerful then nothing is. It's all the same. You can write code to do anything. Does is really matter how much code is required to do it? You can say it's short or efficient but powerful is just useless. Nuclear energy is powerful. Code is words.
I think that power would normally refer to how quickly it can process data, for example I found that in python as soon as a list exceeds a length of approx. 2000 it becomes unbearably slow whereas in C++ a list can easily contain 20,000 entries without doing so.