> As long as the languages operate on the same virtual computer (same IO capacities), you can create the same semantics on any language. At the worst case, you

> As long as the languages operate on the same virtual computer (same IO capacities), you can create the same semantics on any language. At the worst case, you can write an interpreter for any language on any other language. This is fairly tautological and would make semantics meaningless. I'm not talking about the universality of Turing-complete languages, but about the semantics of language constructs. > Most high-level languages got some influence by Lisp-style functional programing, so they transform into function reduction/composition with some amount of naturality. The imperative languages are the ones with the less straight-forward transformation, while Lisp is basically alone at the other extreme. This has nothing to do with what I said, so I'm not sure what your point is?