>If it was bad, it wouldn't have become the way to communicate with people in every culture on the planet. We have nothing better, but it is not the only way w

>If it was bad, it wouldn't have become the way to communicate with people in every culture on the planet. We have nothing better, but it is not the only way we communicate. Mathmatics made a whole other language to communicate with because spoken language wasn't effective enough. Further, natural language is useful among people because we can work out meanings, fill in implicit statements closely enough, have experience on what certain phrases mean and so on. Even with every tool we have, we often still get it wrong. So if it takes so much intelligence to be able to communicate with written language, why would anyone imagine it a good idea to expect computers to be able to do this too? A computer must explicitly be told what to do in every situation. Typically when we need to go into that level of detail with people we don't use natural language either. We generally demonstrate what must be done (e.g. youtube tutorials which often don't even have sound, etc.). >Many of us who work on computers don't learn these other aspects of natural language very well, and tend to project this limited command of natural language onto computer languages. Is that a rock thrown at me? I don't think I have a problem here. I'm just realistic about what language is good at. Natural language's value is that it can be very concise when everyone has the same context as you. With a computer this is never the case.