4 ms·

No more than a jelly fish is a fish. Code is a mixture of logic, math, statistics and abstracted electronics diagrams. The typical programing language is a nat

No more than a jelly fish is a fish. Code is a mixture of logic, math, statistics and abstracted electronics diagrams. The typical programing language is a natural language only to the degree those others are. Which is to say it's not. At least in any normal definition of the term.

ergothus 8y ago
And yet, a vast component of code is communicating to developers. Some patterns (e.g. Java) try to minimize the expressiveness in favor of consistency, others (e.g. Perl, etc) focus on expressiveness (which makes the subsequent result highly dependent on the skill of the _expression_ of the original programmer). But either way, there's distinctly language going on. It just conveys in a different manner than the common human languages I know of.
- wang_li 8y ago
  I have a challenge for you, or anyone really. Translate Gettysburg Address into your programming language of choice and present it here for determining of those fluent in your chosen language understand what you have translated. Constraints: You can't use print statements to echo the English text of the address. You can't use English or English-like identifiers. I know of no programming language that can convey the meaning of these sentences, it's simply not what the languages are meant to do: >But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Eh, there are human languages that cannot convey meanings that other languages can. Those languages, by your definition, are not human languages (which is silly, because they are).
  - ergothus 8y ago
    > I know of no programming language that can convey the meaning of these sentences Are _these_ meanings the meaning that define language? To say that programming languages exist to convey meaning does not equate to being able to express all meanings.
  - naniwaduni 8y ago
    It's surprisingly difficult to translate any nontrivial passage from any human language to any other human language in a way that everyone can agree preserves meaning.
  - andrewflnr 8y ago
    > it's simply not what the languages are meant to do I'd say you answered your own question, here.
  - PJDK 8y ago
    in c# (partial code) using(var usPeoples = new UsPeopleContext()) { var waverers = usPeoples.Where(x => x.IsUnsureOfContextOfCivilWarAndReasonsToPersue == false).ToList(); waverers.ForEach(x => { x.Reassure(); x.Inspire(); }); await usPeoples.SaveChangesAsync(); }
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Reminds me of Peter Norvig's translation into PowerPoint: https://norvig.com/Gettysburg/ https://norvig.com/Gettysburg/ (satirizing its overuse and flattening of style)
    - itronitron 8y ago
      soulwise, these are trying times
  - vntok 8y ago
    > But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. Sounds like some "brave" developers defined a "Ground" class (maybe they "struggled" over its name?) that they "consecrated" by marking it as final, so that other developers shall not extend it later to "add or detract" from its original purpose.
teunispeters 8y ago
Yes and no Code also contains the perspectives of the native language the coding system was written from - which for most code languages is English (and all too often USA centric). This may have indirect consequences, eg handling of date/time or spacial measurements or direct in terms of how code itself is organized. (the naming of functions has bias for instance - it directs the reader's attention towards assumptions ...) I suppose I'd compare natural language fish to... Most (all?) computer programming languages would be remorah following English the shark. I wonder what a computer language that came out of a completely different world view would look like?
- jtuente 8y ago
  Just check out this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-English-based_programming_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-English-based_programming_... Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315913
  - teunispeters 8y ago
    Some of those are just "translations on top of" which keep the metaphorical constructs in place. A lot though ... very interesting. Thank you!
- bookofjoe 8y ago
  "Arrival"
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  Beyond cultural influences, they also reflect a strange human conception of logic. We have an intuition of the concepts "AND", "OR" but not for "NAND" which would be much more convenient. We also merge implication with causation to create an idea of "if x the y". If a jelly fish, remorah or shark built a programing language, I too wonder what it would like like. Maybe we can get an AI to make one someday and see what happens.
swiley 8y ago
Most electronic schematic languages (which I'm guessing is what you meant by electronics diagrams) very much are human languages, sometimes the human readable part is a presentation of a machine readable part but often the goal is to have something that a human interprets.

ergothus 8y ago

And yet, a vast component of code is communicating to developers. Some patterns (e.g. Java) try to minimize the expressiveness in favor of consistency, others (e.g. Perl, etc) focus on expressiveness (which makes the subsequent result highly dependent on the skill of the _expression_ of the original programmer). But either way, there's distinctly language going on. It just conveys in a different manner than the common human languages I know of.

wang_li 8y ago
I have a challenge for you, or anyone really. Translate Gettysburg Address into your programming language of choice and present it here for determining of those fluent in your chosen language understand what you have translated. Constraints: You can't use print statements to echo the English text of the address. You can't use English or English-like identifiers. I know of no programming language that can convey the meaning of these sentences, it's simply not what the languages are meant to do: >But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Eh, there are human languages that cannot convey meanings that other languages can. Those languages, by your definition, are not human languages (which is silly, because they are).
- ergothus 8y ago
  > I know of no programming language that can convey the meaning of these sentences Are _these_ meanings the meaning that define language? To say that programming languages exist to convey meaning does not equate to being able to express all meanings.
- naniwaduni 8y ago
  It's surprisingly difficult to translate any nontrivial passage from any human language to any other human language in a way that everyone can agree preserves meaning.
- andrewflnr 8y ago
  > it's simply not what the languages are meant to do I'd say you answered your own question, here.
- PJDK 8y ago
  in c# (partial code) using(var usPeoples = new UsPeopleContext()) { var waverers = usPeoples.Where(x => x.IsUnsureOfContextOfCivilWarAndReasonsToPersue == false).ToList(); waverers.ForEach(x => { x.Reassure(); x.Inspire(); }); await usPeoples.SaveChangesAsync(); }
- pjc50 8y ago
  Reminds me of Peter Norvig's translation into PowerPoint: https://norvig.com/Gettysburg/ https://norvig.com/Gettysburg/ (satirizing its overuse and flattening of style)
  - itronitron 8y ago
    soulwise, these are trying times
- vntok 8y ago
  > But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. Sounds like some "brave" developers defined a "Ground" class (maybe they "struggled" over its name?) that they "consecrated" by marking it as final, so that other developers shall not extend it later to "add or detract" from its original purpose.

teunispeters 8y ago

Yes and no Code also contains the perspectives of the native language the coding system was written from - which for most code languages is English (and all too often USA centric). This may have indirect consequences, eg handling of date/time or spacial measurements or direct in terms of how code itself is organized. (the naming of functions has bias for instance - it directs the reader's attention towards assumptions ...) I suppose I'd compare natural language fish to... Most (all?) computer programming languages would be remorah following English the shark. I wonder what a computer language that came out of a completely different world view would look like?

jtuente 8y ago
Just check out this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-English-based_programming_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-English-based_programming_... Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315913
- teunispeters 8y ago
  Some of those are just "translations on top of" which keep the metaphorical constructs in place. A lot though ... very interesting. Thank you!
bookofjoe 8y ago
"Arrival"
TomMckenny 8y ago
Beyond cultural influences, they also reflect a strange human conception of logic. We have an intuition of the concepts "AND", "OR" but not for "NAND" which would be much more convenient. We also merge implication with causation to create an idea of "if x the y". If a jelly fish, remorah or shark built a programing language, I too wonder what it would like like. Maybe we can get an AI to make one someday and see what happens.

swiley 8y ago

Most electronic schematic languages (which I'm guessing is what you meant by electronics diagrams) very much are human languages, sometimes the human readable part is a presentation of a machine readable part but often the goal is to have something that a human interprets.