IMO, I'm not linguist but I can see a programming language being just as "language" as any other. Follow my thinking. Just like math topology, if you don't punc

IMO, I'm not linguist but I can see a programming language being just as "language" as any other. Follow my thinking. Just like math topology, if you don't punch a hole into your domain, you can stretch and shape the former until you obtain something else that also doesn't have a hole and looks like something else, but it's fundamentally the same "domain" you started from, you can stretch and shape it back into that. Now let's progress into languages. Human languages are used to communicate abstract and concrete ideas, and that is achieved by the use of either symbols, sounds and/or body expressions. Now, it happens that we don't speak 'C++' for sure, and we can't certainly wave 'C++', but we definitely can communicate abstract ideas by using C++; besides, that's what happen when you write C++ code. Also, when you read someone's else C++ code, eventually you'll learn the abstract ideas that are being communicated, can take a while, depends on many factors, but eventually you'll do. So, by this reasoning, programming languages are as just as "language" as the humans one, as far as we consider communicating ideas the main objective here. They might not be efficient enough so you can communicate to your friend how you liked the book you've just read (without using a string literal all alone, ofc), but human languages aren't also efficient in communicating a x86 processor what to do in order to sort an array; but both languages communicate ideas nevertheless.