3 ms·
Then we already have those languages: They exist because they are used. I'm not sure this is helpful though. We've accepted "literally" also means "not literal
by geocar 11y ago
Then we already have those languages: They exist because they are used.
I'm not sure this is helpful though. We've accepted "literally" also means "not literally" without creating a new language.
- steveklabnik 11y agoYes, but that introduces some backwards incompatibility. The C standards body has a really, really high bar for doing so. English, not so much. That is a choice they're making.
- kenko 11y ago> I'm not sure this is helpful though. We've accepted "literally" also means "not literally" without creating a new language. http://waste.typepad.com/waste/2014/07/on-a-popular-misconception-concerning-literally.html http://waste.typepad.com/waste/2014/07/on-a-popular-misconce... It's just a figurative use of "literally". It's like saying "He's such a baby" of an immature (<- also figurative!) adult. You aren't saying that such an adult is actually a baby.
- scott_s 11y agoProgramming languages necessarily have stricter definitions and semantics than human languages.