4 ms·

The reason we have lots of programming languages is because: 1. They're not that different. Once you've learned a few, picking up new ones is pretty easy. 2.

by ggreer 10y ago

The reason we have lots of programming languages is because: 1. They're not that different. Once you've learned a few, picking up new ones is pretty easy. 2. They're much easier to learn than human languages. To answer your first question: I probably wouldn't stop using english myself, but I don't think I'd teach it to my children.

mablap 10y ago
Have you read the article? The condition has to be stronger than simply not teaching it to your children. You have to absolutely and completely remove the worldview, cultural heritage, geographic knowledge etc that comes with it. Thus to get my (and the article's) point, you need not just stop teaching it to children, you have to completely erase the underlying knowledge the language holds and start over in a new language. This is the point: you lose much more than what appears on first glance. And concerning programming languages, I don't see how picking up brainfuck for example is easy, but someone still put the effort into creating it. Imagine a universe in which you'd have to solve every single programming problem in C. You could dream up all sorts of programming language concepts, but you could never use any other language than C. I bet you'd find that a bit boring and tedious... Make no mistake, I'm not advocating for languages to keep their purity. I think it's a good thing they mix and borrow concepts and words. But I do find the idea of having one world language an utter absurdity.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > Have you read the article? 'Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."' https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mablap 10y ago
    Noted. However I think the tone I used is different than what is given as an example. I was really asking the question, since depending on the answer, our disagreement would be on a different level.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      True, but it's a burden on mods (read: dang) to have to make that distinction, are far easier, in this case, to self moderate. No problems in any case :-)
DonaldFisk 10y ago
Never mind differences: are there any similarities between, for example, C and Prolog?
kazinator 10y ago
3. You can teach millions of computers to obey a new language just by copying its implementation onto them. You can make something that reaches countless users even if you're the only person working in your language.
- mablap 10y ago
  The process you describe is effectively translation. This works with natural languages as well.
  - kazinator 10y ago
    The process I describe of installing a translation method in seconds, bringing about instant understanding, doesn't work with natural languages.
    - mablap 10y ago
      Just because it takes more time does not mean the process is fundamentally different.
      - kazinator 10y ago
        Right, it's fundamentally different for other reasons. For one thing, no two "installations" of a natural language are identical. The natural language learning process isn't like loading a program into a machine, but a "reverse engineering": forming a refined set of hypotheses about what the rules are, from examples. Thus after years of learning, still no two competent, even native speakers will agree about all the fine points of what they learned. By contrast, we can easily install the same version of a programming language interpreter/compiler and run-time onto countless machines and get the same behavior. The machines do not have to guess what the language is by forming hypotheses and testing them against more competent "speakers", to obtain either approval or correction. They just receive a ready-made software image. In essence, a million installations of the same programming language are just manifestations of one image, whereas a million speakers of a language are individuals (not just as people, but as speakers of that language). If people could receive a language as an image dumped into the brain, it would be a game-changer. It would still be a game changer even if it took five years to complete, rather than an hour. It would make fledgling languages more viable. Because languages are hard to learn and even harder to learn very well, people tend not to be so interested in fledgling languages that can't be used outside of a small locale with a small number of speakers. Not as a second language, that's for sure.
chongli 10y ago
They're not that different. Once you've learned a few, picking up new ones is pretty easy. Only if you stay in the same family. Going from C to C++, Java, or C# is pretty easy. Try going from C to Haskell or Clojure or Erlang. You can play the same game with natural languages. It's easy to go between French, Italian, and Spanish. Try going from Icelandic to Mandarin.

by ggreer 10y ago

mablap 10y ago

Have you read the article? The condition has to be stronger than simply not teaching it to your children. You have to absolutely and completely remove the worldview, cultural heritage, geographic knowledge etc that comes with it. Thus to get my (and the article's) point, you need not just stop teaching it to children, you have to completely erase the underlying knowledge the language holds and start over in a new language. This is the point: you lose much more than what appears on first glance. And concerning programming languages, I don't see how picking up brainfuck for example is easy, but someone still put the effort into creating it. Imagine a universe in which you'd have to solve every single programming problem in C. You could dream up all sorts of programming language concepts, but you could never use any other language than C. I bet you'd find that a bit boring and tedious... Make no mistake, I'm not advocating for languages to keep their purity. I think it's a good thing they mix and borrow concepts and words. But I do find the idea of having one world language an utter absurdity.

Chris2048 10y ago
> Have you read the article? 'Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."' https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mablap 10y ago
  Noted. However I think the tone I used is different than what is given as an example. I was really asking the question, since depending on the answer, our disagreement would be on a different level.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    True, but it's a burden on mods (read: dang) to have to make that distinction, are far easier, in this case, to self moderate. No problems in any case :-)

DonaldFisk 10y ago

Never mind differences: are there any similarities between, for example, C and Prolog?

kazinator 10y ago

3. You can teach millions of computers to obey a new language just by copying its implementation onto them. You can make something that reaches countless users even if you're the only person working in your language.

mablap 10y ago
The process you describe is effectively translation. This works with natural languages as well.
- kazinator 10y ago
  The process I describe of installing a translation method in seconds, bringing about instant understanding, doesn't work with natural languages.
  - mablap 10y ago
    Just because it takes more time does not mean the process is fundamentally different.
    - kazinator 10y ago
      Right, it's fundamentally different for other reasons. For one thing, no two "installations" of a natural language are identical. The natural language learning process isn't like loading a program into a machine, but a "reverse engineering": forming a refined set of hypotheses about what the rules are, from examples. Thus after years of learning, still no two competent, even native speakers will agree about all the fine points of what they learned. By contrast, we can easily install the same version of a programming language interpreter/compiler and run-time onto countless machines and get the same behavior. The machines do not have to guess what the language is by forming hypotheses and testing them against more competent "speakers", to obtain either approval or correction. They just receive a ready-made software image. In essence, a million installations of the same programming language are just manifestations of one image, whereas a million speakers of a language are individuals (not just as people, but as speakers of that language). If people could receive a language as an image dumped into the brain, it would be a game-changer. It would still be a game changer even if it took five years to complete, rather than an hour. It would make fledgling languages more viable. Because languages are hard to learn and even harder to learn very well, people tend not to be so interested in fledgling languages that can't be used outside of a small locale with a small number of speakers. Not as a second language, that's for sure.

chongli 10y ago

They're not that different. Once you've learned a few, picking up new ones is pretty easy. Only if you stay in the same family. Going from C to C++, Java, or C# is pretty easy. Try going from C to Haskell or Clojure or Erlang. You can play the same game with natural languages. It's easy to go between French, Italian, and Spanish. Try going from Icelandic to Mandarin.