4 ms·

Interesting. I feel like coding is not that dissimilar. In the early phases of learning a new coding language, I learn how to write lines of code. Sometimes it

by colmvp 6y ago

Interesting. I feel like coding is not that dissimilar. In the early phases of learning a new coding language, I learn how to write lines of code. Sometimes it compiles, most of the time it would cause errors. At some point it works, but a more seasoned engineer could easily find places to refactor it in order to make it more extensible/flexible, easier to read, less brittle, and most importantly to this discussion on coding language, more idiomatic. Now, you could say surely I could've seen these by reading the docs and learning about certain library features or patterns specific to the language. But in my experience, I tend to learn faster by first exercising my brain and trying it out on my own take before having someone (be it a mentor or a tutorial/book) correct me so that I have a bit more context about why an alternative approach is better.

godelski 6y ago
I don't understand this. If your code has wrong syntax it doesn't compile. If wrong grammar you can get very wrong results. But in english you can say "I go store" and it's understandable (which btw, can be a direct translation from several languages)
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  > If your code has wrong syntax it doesn't compile. If wrong grammar you can get very wrong results. In both cases, when you get it that wrong that your meaning doesn’t come across correctly, it’ll usually get pointed out to you, either by the compiler or the person you’re talking to, so you can go back and try again. Eventually, you’ve potentially gotten it right when the compiler stops throwing errors or the person you’re speaking to understands. Unfortunately, in both cases you may still not end up with the desired outcome as your compiler is “stupid” and cannot understand intent, only what you’ve written. Similarly, but different, the human you’re speaking to may bore of your broken language eventually and just move on. There’s no perfect system for everyone, but it never hurts to remember the saying: perfect is the enemy of good enough. It doesn’t matter if your language skills are perfect, just that they’re good enough to convey your meaning effectively for the environment you’re in.
  - tremon 6y ago
    In my experience, when you're an adult, people are too polite/reserved/caring/uncaring to correct spoken language errors for you. They'll be much more likely to infer what you meant silently, and react as if you'd spoken the sentence perfectly. In that sense, people are much more like a web browser in how they process your language than a compiler.
    - foolmeonce 6y ago
      They aren't just polite, it's exhausting to play the pedantic compiler and generally degenerates or requires an agreement with an equivalent exchange. Perhaps having an automatic compiler changes our perception much as an auto-tickling device doesn't work, but surely early levels of math and languages have similar learning paths.
    - oarsinsync 6y ago
      Apologies, I realise the way I wrote this wasn’t clear enough: > Eventually, you’ve potentially gotten it right when ... the person you’re speaking to understands I can see that I wrote poorly here myself, and here you (and child) are correctly correcting me, while simultaneously arguing against that happening, which is kinda ironic! What I failed to adequately express was that human languages are a lot more forgiving of errors, and as long as the message is understood, you’ve gotten it “right”
    - icefo 6y ago
      Which is fine, you can learn a lot by immersion when you hear other native speakers talk. I only ask a person to repeat when I don't understand or if it's unclear and I need to be sure about something. Not breaking the flow of conversation is much more important to me
  - godelski 6y ago
    I disagree with this. How many people do you know that have been speaking English for years but still miss articles ('a', 'the')? It is still very easy to understand these people. We could say the same about tones, diction, and accents. Plenty of people that don't sound native can easily be understood. You'd actually be surprised how much you can butcher a language and still be able to communicate (this is really helpful to language learners!). There's so much fuzziness here that it I haven't seen any compiler (plugin, shell, etc) anywhere near this level of fuzziness. Tldr: Compilers you need to be fairly precise, natural languages you barely need to be in the ball park.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Wrong syntax is more like using the wrong words in human languages than it is like what we normally call bad grammar. If you write in C 'foo(a;', that's equivalent to saying 'ball foo with a' - the compiler really can't understand what you mean. The equivalent of 'I go store' is something more like writing 'int p; printf("%d", p);' - the compiler understands what you mean, but it's bad style, and possibly wrong (you're supposed to initialize a variable before you read it).
- jjk166 6y ago
  The people you're talking to are just incredibly intelligent compilers. We could make a compiler that takes something that resembles a for loop and changes it to be correct, but to do so would strip a programmer of the power to make something similar to but not quite a for loop, which would generally be undesirable in a programming language. "I go store" is reasonably close to correct: you have a subject, predicate, and object and there is one meaning that fits far better than all others. However switch it up to "I store food" and now you have some ambiguity: are you saying you are storing food for later or are you saying you want to go to a grocery store or are you trying to talk about the food you purchased at the store? Again, a human being incredibly intelligent might be able to tell from context, analogous to how someone reviewing a block of code might recognize what a block of code is supposed to be doing, but in general you could expect the interpreter to raise an error, either of the form "bad syntax" or "sorry, I'm not sure what you mean." If we consider "human languages" like legalese or diplomatic language, where the goal as with programming languages is to limit ambiguity as much as possible while maintaining the speaker's ability to potentially say as many things as possible, syntax becomes very important, and typically it's preferred that the interpreter raise an error rather than try to guess at the speaker's intentions.
  - godelski 6y ago
    The difference is in natural languages you can make tons of errors and be extremely fuzzy and it won't harm the interpretation. Compilers make you update, language doesn't (this does actually cause people to speak a language for decades and never sound native). Often times we can use grammar of another language and the words from another and still get concepts aligned (useful for language learners who will tend to use the grammar of their native language). "Pineapple store I go get" can be a perfectly understandable sentence when context is involved. You can also use direct translations of words from other languages "I put on my... uh... finger shoes." (contextual clues always help, especially in writing). Humans are "fuzzy compiling" to such a degree (and giving no errors or warnings to the writer) that it is hard to compare the two. > If we consider "human languages" like legalese or diplomatic language, where the goal as with programming languages is to limit ambiguity as much as possible while maintaining the speaker's ability to potentially say as many things as possible, syntax becomes very important, and typically it's preferred that the interpreter raise an error rather than try to guess at the speaker's intentions. Such a concept is not even possible in natural languages. Natural languages are so full of ambiguity that even native speakers from similar regions often confuse one another. Because frankly many don't realize there's: what you intend to say, what you say, and what is heard (times number of listeners). When listening to a non-native speaker we focus a lot of trying to understand intent from them. When listening to native speakers we focus a lot on what is said and what we hear (often ignoring intent). There is just so much fuzziness to natural language that it is a bit ludicrous to compare them. The fuzziness of natural language and strictness of programming languages are necessary features too.
tsimionescu 6y ago
The thing is, computer languages are extremely simple compared to human languages. Even the more arcane ones, like C++, probably have on the order of 1-200 'words' that you ahev to learn to 'speak' them fluently. Of course, you also need to learn large amounts of library functions and their semantics, but that's more like learning who the people at court are and what their roles are than like the language. You could speak perfect French, but you still have to learn that you must call the Comptesse de Barry before calling the King if you don't want her to be upset. Even patterns are often more in this area of cultural/local context rather than the actual langauge - more like learning the difference between overly-descriptive prose and good prose is (which is why the knowledge about it also tends to translate better between different languages).

by colmvp 6y ago

godelski 6y ago

I don't understand this. If your code has wrong syntax it doesn't compile. If wrong grammar you can get very wrong results. But in english you can say "I go store" and it's understandable (which btw, can be a direct translation from several languages)

oarsinsync 6y ago
> If your code has wrong syntax it doesn't compile. If wrong grammar you can get very wrong results. In both cases, when you get it that wrong that your meaning doesn’t come across correctly, it’ll usually get pointed out to you, either by the compiler or the person you’re talking to, so you can go back and try again. Eventually, you’ve potentially gotten it right when the compiler stops throwing errors or the person you’re speaking to understands. Unfortunately, in both cases you may still not end up with the desired outcome as your compiler is “stupid” and cannot understand intent, only what you’ve written. Similarly, but different, the human you’re speaking to may bore of your broken language eventually and just move on. There’s no perfect system for everyone, but it never hurts to remember the saying: perfect is the enemy of good enough. It doesn’t matter if your language skills are perfect, just that they’re good enough to convey your meaning effectively for the environment you’re in.
- tremon 6y ago
  In my experience, when you're an adult, people are too polite/reserved/caring/uncaring to correct spoken language errors for you. They'll be much more likely to infer what you meant silently, and react as if you'd spoken the sentence perfectly. In that sense, people are much more like a web browser in how they process your language than a compiler.
  - foolmeonce 6y ago
    They aren't just polite, it's exhausting to play the pedantic compiler and generally degenerates or requires an agreement with an equivalent exchange. Perhaps having an automatic compiler changes our perception much as an auto-tickling device doesn't work, but surely early levels of math and languages have similar learning paths.
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    Apologies, I realise the way I wrote this wasn’t clear enough: > Eventually, you’ve potentially gotten it right when ... the person you’re speaking to understands I can see that I wrote poorly here myself, and here you (and child) are correctly correcting me, while simultaneously arguing against that happening, which is kinda ironic! What I failed to adequately express was that human languages are a lot more forgiving of errors, and as long as the message is understood, you’ve gotten it “right”
  - icefo 6y ago
    Which is fine, you can learn a lot by immersion when you hear other native speakers talk. I only ask a person to repeat when I don't understand or if it's unclear and I need to be sure about something. Not breaking the flow of conversation is much more important to me
- godelski 6y ago
  I disagree with this. How many people do you know that have been speaking English for years but still miss articles ('a', 'the')? It is still very easy to understand these people. We could say the same about tones, diction, and accents. Plenty of people that don't sound native can easily be understood. You'd actually be surprised how much you can butcher a language and still be able to communicate (this is really helpful to language learners!). There's so much fuzziness here that it I haven't seen any compiler (plugin, shell, etc) anywhere near this level of fuzziness. Tldr: Compilers you need to be fairly precise, natural languages you barely need to be in the ball park.
tsimionescu 6y ago
Wrong syntax is more like using the wrong words in human languages than it is like what we normally call bad grammar. If you write in C 'foo(a;', that's equivalent to saying 'ball foo with a' - the compiler really can't understand what you mean. The equivalent of 'I go store' is something more like writing 'int p; printf("%d", p);' - the compiler understands what you mean, but it's bad style, and possibly wrong (you're supposed to initialize a variable before you read it).
jjk166 6y ago
The people you're talking to are just incredibly intelligent compilers. We could make a compiler that takes something that resembles a for loop and changes it to be correct, but to do so would strip a programmer of the power to make something similar to but not quite a for loop, which would generally be undesirable in a programming language. "I go store" is reasonably close to correct: you have a subject, predicate, and object and there is one meaning that fits far better than all others. However switch it up to "I store food" and now you have some ambiguity: are you saying you are storing food for later or are you saying you want to go to a grocery store or are you trying to talk about the food you purchased at the store? Again, a human being incredibly intelligent might be able to tell from context, analogous to how someone reviewing a block of code might recognize what a block of code is supposed to be doing, but in general you could expect the interpreter to raise an error, either of the form "bad syntax" or "sorry, I'm not sure what you mean." If we consider "human languages" like legalese or diplomatic language, where the goal as with programming languages is to limit ambiguity as much as possible while maintaining the speaker's ability to potentially say as many things as possible, syntax becomes very important, and typically it's preferred that the interpreter raise an error rather than try to guess at the speaker's intentions.
- godelski 6y ago
  The difference is in natural languages you can make tons of errors and be extremely fuzzy and it won't harm the interpretation. Compilers make you update, language doesn't (this does actually cause people to speak a language for decades and never sound native). Often times we can use grammar of another language and the words from another and still get concepts aligned (useful for language learners who will tend to use the grammar of their native language). "Pineapple store I go get" can be a perfectly understandable sentence when context is involved. You can also use direct translations of words from other languages "I put on my... uh... finger shoes." (contextual clues always help, especially in writing). Humans are "fuzzy compiling" to such a degree (and giving no errors or warnings to the writer) that it is hard to compare the two. > If we consider "human languages" like legalese or diplomatic language, where the goal as with programming languages is to limit ambiguity as much as possible while maintaining the speaker's ability to potentially say as many things as possible, syntax becomes very important, and typically it's preferred that the interpreter raise an error rather than try to guess at the speaker's intentions. Such a concept is not even possible in natural languages. Natural languages are so full of ambiguity that even native speakers from similar regions often confuse one another. Because frankly many don't realize there's: what you intend to say, what you say, and what is heard (times number of listeners). When listening to a non-native speaker we focus a lot of trying to understand intent from them. When listening to native speakers we focus a lot on what is said and what we hear (often ignoring intent). There is just so much fuzziness to natural language that it is a bit ludicrous to compare them. The fuzziness of natural language and strictness of programming languages are necessary features too.

tsimionescu 6y ago

The thing is, computer languages are extremely simple compared to human languages. Even the more arcane ones, like C++, probably have on the order of 1-200 'words' that you ahev to learn to 'speak' them fluently. Of course, you also need to learn large amounts of library functions and their semantics, but that's more like learning who the people at court are and what their roles are than like the language. You could speak perfect French, but you still have to learn that you must call the Comptesse de Barry before calling the King if you don't want her to be upset. Even patterns are often more in this area of cultural/local context rather than the actual langauge - more like learning the difference between overly-descriptive prose and good prose is (which is why the knowledge about it also tends to translate better between different languages).