what would be the impediments to creating an "Europanto" type universal scripting language? - scripting

Question

After switching back and forth between several scripting languages this week, I found myself thinking how similar they all are. Yet I'm always reaching for Google (or nowadays SO) to remember details like what the local equivalents of "instanceof" and "endswith" are, or the right syntax to declare an interface, or whatever.
This reminded me of the (human) language Europonto. Just pick some vaguely English syntax and some vaguely Romance/Germanic/Slavic vocabulary, and it's all good!
So what would happen if we tried to do the same thing with a scripting language. In the mood for Python-style indented blocks today? Fine! Want to use a prototype object? Ok! Can only remember how to spell the PHP names of some library function? No problem!
Anyway, that's the wild and crazy idea. Since we need a question that admits concrete answers, let's tighten it up like this:
What would be the most significant conflicts in creating a scripting language that permitted all the native syntax and library functions of [Python, Ruby, PHP, Perl, shell, and JavaScript], such that you could freely intermix code blocks and function names between languages?
And let's say that any particular construction should be consistent at the statement level. So we'll allow:
foreach( $foo as $bar )
{
if $foo == 2:
print "hi"
}
but not, say,
foreach( $foo as $bar )
{
if $foo == 2:
print "hi"
endif
end
Conflicts can include: parser ambiguities; name collision; conflicting semantics for objects or functions or closures; etc. I'm guessing that scope will be a ginormous issue, but you tell me.
I'll start this as "community wiki" from the get go, so if you think it's a fun question but want to make it more rigorous, feel free to edit.

Answer 1

I would suggest that the main problem is recognising what the syntax of each statement is supposed to be.
In any case, what is the point? Almost all scripting languages have facilities to do much the same things, which is why people tend to master one that they use consistently, and stick with it.

Answer 2

The main difficulty would to be to allow people maintain it. With a well defined language you can only print a certain way and do sys.argv a certain way. once you allow multiple syntaxes there is no sane way to search for all the sys.argv in the code base you have.

Answer 3

At the syntactical level the only problem I can see would be to detect which block has which syntax, then separate them and parse them with specific parsers. Of course given very small statements there could be ambiguities as to which language it is and you could argue that it doesn't matter, but it just may be the case, that in different languages the same string of characters does different things so this could be a subtle issue.
At the API level you would have lots of different methods of doing the same thing but in a subtly different way or subset of doing it. So for example you could have no way of doing Java's string.startsWith() in let's say PHP, so you would do something different, or no way of doing PHP's strstr() (which returns a part of the string from the found needle to the end) and you would implement something different for that or even think differently about the problem. Then you would have to have all those different API methods of doing the same things and that would be huge API to implement, support and (god forbid) learn.
At the wetware level the code written by others would be totally unreadable unless you know a ton of languages and their subtle differences. I think it is difficult enough to learn a single programming language to the smallest details and so it is not practical at all to have this kind of frankensteinish beast created. I can think of an exception for use as an algorithm description language which it already is used in universities all over the world, where teacher takes some language of his liking and makes the code as readable as it can be for a human without needing to implement a parser for it.
As a side note I think this kind of system could be implemented at the least effort by somehow utilizing .NET's CLR where you have a ton of different languages each compiling to the same bytecode and accessing the same variables and stuff. All you'd need to do is split the code to clusters of different languages, then compile them separately on their respective compilers and then just merge the bytecode and somehow make sure they all point to the same variables and functions when mentioning the same names across the different languages.

Answer 4

I have begun to see that syntax is but one property of a language. And most of them look like C to me. The purpose of a language (object oriented, strong typing, etc) is something else again. It starts to look like syntax is not the most important aspect.
I went and read the wikipedia entry...
Europanto is a linguistic jest presented as a "constructed language" with a hodge-podge vocabulary
"Hodge-podge" sounds like the way Perl has been described to me!

Answer 5

I found a rather detailed discussion of closures in Ruby. It sounds like getting Ruby's behavior to coexist with JavaScript's or Python's would require some kind of ugly disambiguation.
If anybody were to add Perl to the list of languages to be covered, I think its lexical scoping rules would present a related problem?