3 ms·
> “Just because mistake is common” A good example of why having a language that is squishy to common errors is valuable. I still understood your point even tho
by williamtrask 3y ago
> “Just because mistake is common”
A good example of why having a language that is squishy to common errors is valuable. I still understood your point even though it’s grammar wouldn’t compile.
- prepend 3y agoHumans aren’t programming languages. So programming languages don’t need to do everything humans do. It’s ok for things to be different. It’s cool that I understood what you meant when you said “it’s grammar wouldn’t compile” but I would definitely expect a compiler to barf unless you entered “its grammar.”
- shpx 3y agoProgrammers just haven't been able to make computers as good at language as humans are at language because they're not good enough at their jobs. There's no inherent reason that programming language statements need to perfectly follow regular grammars and have exactly defined vocabularies (functions) that compile to ASTs, etc. that's just the highest level of language technology we've invented. It has essentially no error recovery mechanisms because it's hard/tedious and error is hard to model using logic. Being frustrated that this is the case is expressing an underserved need in the market. You're aware of the limitations and have grown to be okay with them because otherwise you'd probably hate programming, but that doesn't mean we should all always be okay with them forever.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- steve_gh 3y agoPostel's law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle) would seem relevant here: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send"