[badsectoracula]

I was a kid, what the words meant in English didn't matter much (e.g. i was learning Pascal and it took years until i learned what 'procedure' means), they were essentially symbols. They wouldn't really be helpful.

I just had a book in my native language which explained things.

[SamBam]

I'm not so sure. At that point, why have programming instructions be words at all? Why not make everything a 3-character symbol?

While you certainly can learn a programming language without any understanding of the keywords, I don't think you can really say that it doesn't help if you do know them. My kid is learning Scratch, and I didn't have to explain to her what the "REPEAT" block would do.

[spc476]

I came across a reference to such a language in the January 1986 issue of "Computer Language" (I have the magazine right in front of me as I type) and the idea has remained firmly lodged in my brain ever since. Some examples:

    (!i = 0 , 2 .. 15
      r = foobar(i)
    !r = 0)

This sets `i` to be the even values less than 15 and will repeat until the result of `foobar()` is not 0. The expressions on either end are optional.

    ?char = 'x' : result = 'y'

A simple if statement. This can be extended:

    (?m
      = copy : sub(1)
      = find : sub(2)
      = quit : sub(3)
     ?)

Unfortunately, the article is only two pages, and it doesn't cover everything and I've been unable to find anything else about the language, but it was a very cool idea.

[badsectoracula]

Words are easier to read and write even if you do not understand their real life meaning, especially since computers are still made with a primary input device for typing words, and allow for way more distinct and readable variations (26 letters + numbers vs just the few symbols on the keyboard). And while they aren't that helpful when learning as a kid, they can still be very helpful later when you have to tackle way more - remember that the argument was about kids learning.