Yes a human language or grammar doesn't come into being the same way a programming language does, but the notion of correctness still exists and I'd probably de

Yes a human language or grammar doesn't come into being the same way a programming language does, but the notion of correctness still exists and I'd probably define it as: Correct === Tradition + Lots 'o' Time And Matt wasn't arguing this, but I have to link to Eric Lippert whenever I can so: The idea programming language isn't 'correct' is kinda wonky. As I learned from Eric Lippert's [Three umpires](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2009/11/09/three-umpires.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2009/11/09/three...): Three baseball umpires are having lunch together. The first umpire says "Well, a lot of them are balls, and a lot of them are strikes, but I always calls 'em as I sees 'em." The second umpire says "Hmph. I calls 'em as they are." The third umpire slowly looks at his two colleagues and declares "They ain't nothin' until I calls 'em." When a designed language is presented to you, you can't really argue about correctness, only suitability to a particular purpose or taste.