3 ms·

I wasn't advocating programming in natural language. Much too ambiguous. I'm saying "closer" to natural language so our cognitive load is reduced reading and wr

I wasn't advocating programming in natural language. Much too ambiguous. I'm saying "closer" to natural language so our cognitive load is reduced reading and writing in the language so we can focus on what matters - to be more productive as you point out.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
There was an attempt to do so, so that professional programmers would be unnecessary. The result was COBOL. I don't want "close to natural language" because it's too verbose. It's like reading an article in The New Yorker - it takes so long to get anything said that you forget what the point was. Of course, "too terse" isn't the answer either. There's a sweet spot. I suspect that the sweet spot varies, depending on the person and the kind of code.
- okareaman 7y ago
  I'm not sure why ppl are misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not advocating COBOL-like languages. I'm saying assembler is better than writing in machine code, C is better than assembler and it would appear for most programmers, Python and JavaScript are the best choice but nobody who wants to keep their job writes code in the style of minified JavaScript or obfuscated C.
  - eggy 7y ago
    To some APL and J are the equivalent of C to assembler. It is not obfuscated, it is concise: brief but comprehensive, and easy to understand if you take the time to learn it like you would other PLs. I think Ken Iverson's "Notation as a Tool of Thought" covers this pretty well [1 PDF]. [1] http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~jzhu/csc326/readings/iverson.pdf http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~jzhu/csc326/readings/iverson.pd...
    - okareaman 7y ago
      Thank you, that's a fascinating article and I'm going to finish reading it, but I'm ot arguing against languages that are designed to be terse and expressive to a certain mode of thought, but rather languages like JavaScript that are not designed to be terse and are deliberately made so at the cost of readability. I just don't find it interesting. It does not follow that the resulting machine code is faster or smaller, so I don't see the point beyond playing a game with language.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

There was an attempt to do so, so that professional programmers would be unnecessary. The result was COBOL. I don't want "close to natural language" because it's too verbose. It's like reading an article in The New Yorker - it takes so long to get anything said that you forget what the point was. Of course, "too terse" isn't the answer either. There's a sweet spot. I suspect that the sweet spot varies, depending on the person and the kind of code.

okareaman 7y ago
I'm not sure why ppl are misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not advocating COBOL-like languages. I'm saying assembler is better than writing in machine code, C is better than assembler and it would appear for most programmers, Python and JavaScript are the best choice but nobody who wants to keep their job writes code in the style of minified JavaScript or obfuscated C.
- eggy 7y ago
  To some APL and J are the equivalent of C to assembler. It is not obfuscated, it is concise: brief but comprehensive, and easy to understand if you take the time to learn it like you would other PLs. I think Ken Iverson's "Notation as a Tool of Thought" covers this pretty well [1 PDF]. [1] http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~jzhu/csc326/readings/iverson.pdf http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~jzhu/csc326/readings/iverson.pd...
  - okareaman 7y ago
    Thank you, that's a fascinating article and I'm going to finish reading it, but I'm ot arguing against languages that are designed to be terse and expressive to a certain mode of thought, but rather languages like JavaScript that are not designed to be terse and are deliberately made so at the cost of readability. I just don't find it interesting. It does not follow that the resulting machine code is faster or smaller, so I don't see the point beyond playing a game with language.