3 ms·
I was just commenting on your remark. I think Dijkstra was picking on the "language to communicate with computers" topic, not on language as a tool of communica
by shmerl 7y ago
I was just commenting on your remark. I think Dijkstra was picking on the "language to communicate with computers" topic, not on language as a tool of communication between people.
I mean, readability of any language for humans is an issue, but I'm not sure what readability for computers means exactly in this context. How easy it is to make an optimizing compiler? Modern languages use zero cost abstractions approach to improve readability for humans, while targeting well optimized code.
- the_af 7y agoVery possibly I misunderstand both you and Dijkstra. What else could he be referring to when he claims "[the name of 'programming languages'] invited the psychologists in, who had nothing to contribute, and it seriously delayed the recognition of the benefits of viewing programs as formulae to be derived."? The fact he specifically picks on COBOL -- exclusively formulated to communicate well to humans, not computers -- seems to favor my interpretation. I could be mistaken, of course. He does speak of "anthropomorphizing inanimate objects", which does favor your interpretation. Or maybe it's mixed?
- shmerl 7y agoMay be I misunderstood him, but his focus on "Giant Brains or Machines that Think" and “The Education of a Computer” sounds like the topic of languages as a tool of communication with computers. I didn't understand the focus as being better communication between programmers.
- the_af 7y agoHmm, I think you're right!