6 ms·

Even if you consider it communication, that doesn't make it a language. Plenty if communication happens through other means. If we look at the debug session or

Even if you consider it communication, that doesn't make it a language. Plenty if communication happens through other means. If we look at the debug session or bash scripting, the closest thing of a two way communication. It doesn't "answer" in code. I see code closer to something like a Floor Plan an architect may use or a CAD drawing from an engineer. Both of them also communicate, but they are not considered languages. They also have a rules (grammer?) and patterns (vocabulary?).

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jraph 2y ago
> Even if you consider it communication, that doesn't make it a language In my first comment, I have broken down the definition of language I found and (supposedly) successfully applied each part of it to programming languages (communication being only one of the features). Where is my mistake? Either the definition is wrong, or incomplete, or one of the matches I made is erroneous, or I missed a match. > an architect may use or a CAD drawing from an engineer. Both of them also communicate, but they are not considered languages. They also have a rules (grammer?) and patterns (vocabulary?). Tough one, maybe those drawings are indeed expressed in a language, just that we don't usually see it as a language / think of it like this. That would apply to map symbols as well [1]. edit: Just noticed French Wikipedia [2] actually cites cartography as a language without a syntax, so that would check out: > la cartographie est un exemple de langage non syntaxique ("Cartography is an example of non-syntactical language") French Wikipedia broadly has the same definition for language as English Wikipedia, but makes the grammar part optional. We could argue that the examples you cited are indeed not languages using the English definition because they don't have grammar (if rules you mentions are not grammar - and indeed you would probably not need a pass of syntactical analysis to "parse" a CAD drawing) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_symbol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_symbol [2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langage https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langage
- danybittel 2y ago
  A language is ... does not mean ... is a language. A dog is an animal but an animal is not always a dog. I think it's clear for the both of us that PLs are not the same as languages. I would just go a little further and calling it a misnomer. For me that is a helpful framing, especially once you go into visual programming.
  - jraph 2y ago
    > A dog is an animal but an animal is not always a dog. In this sentence, "is" describes membership (a bit like isinstance in Python, or instanceof in Java or JS). In a definition, this is not the same "is". In a definition, "is" is the definitional "is", and what is after the "is" is supposed to be a comprehensive list of things you need to match to be called the term preceding the "is" (a bit like "class" or "struct" when you define a type) Given the definition "A dog is a domesticated animal that has four legs and barks", everything that is an animal, domesticated, that has four legs and that barks is indeed a dog, and something that misses even one characteristic is not a dog (though I made up the definition, it is likely wrong). Again, polysemy. Not all uses of be are equal. So: > A language is ... does not mean ... is a language Indeed, though not for the reasons you had in mind when "A language is ..." is a definition of language: both things around your "does not mean" are indeed true (when you were probably hinting at the second part being false, given your dog example), but the first "is" is definitional, and the second is membership. Both are true because the definition actually defines membership for each individual object described by the definition, and by putting the list of requirements of the definition at the beginning of the sentence, you are describing a particular item that trivially matches the definition. Almost like I did in my example (except I used "everything that", instead of "a"). > I think it's clear for the both of us that PLs are not the same as languages As natural languages, yes. Which, granted, we would call just languages in everyday life. > visual programming How is this related? I respect your opinion that language in programming language is a misnomer but have not been convinced so far and the more you are writing, the more I'm convinced that your internal definition of language is just too restrictive and I'm also not seeing how this restriction/framing actually helps. I'm a simple person. You give me a definition of A, you give me something S, if S has all the characteristics given in the definition, S is definitely a A according to this definition. Now, we can discuss the definition and how it's not entirely (or at all) satisfying, complete, appropriate or useful, and how it could be improved, or how the trick of using qualifiers to further restrict the definition does not cut it. On this last point, I, so far, have not felt the need to change the definition of language I know to express my ideas clearly, and have been happy to use qualifiers like "natural" or "programming" when needed and unclear from the context. In particular, I have not encountered a situation where calling a programming language a language lead to confusion or bad consequences.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jraph 2y ago

> Even if you consider it communication, that doesn't make it a language In my first comment, I have broken down the definition of language I found and (supposedly) successfully applied each part of it to programming languages (communication being only one of the features). Where is my mistake? Either the definition is wrong, or incomplete, or one of the matches I made is erroneous, or I missed a match. > an architect may use or a CAD drawing from an engineer. Both of them also communicate, but they are not considered languages. They also have a rules (grammer?) and patterns (vocabulary?). Tough one, maybe those drawings are indeed expressed in a language, just that we don't usually see it as a language / think of it like this. That would apply to map symbols as well [1]. edit: Just noticed French Wikipedia [2] actually cites cartography as a language without a syntax, so that would check out: > la cartographie est un exemple de langage non syntaxique ("Cartography is an example of non-syntactical language") French Wikipedia broadly has the same definition for language as English Wikipedia, but makes the grammar part optional. We could argue that the examples you cited are indeed not languages using the English definition because they don't have grammar (if rules you mentions are not grammar - and indeed you would probably not need a pass of syntactical analysis to "parse" a CAD drawing) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_symbol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_symbol [2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langage https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langage

danybittel 2y ago
A language is ... does not mean ... is a language. A dog is an animal but an animal is not always a dog. I think it's clear for the both of us that PLs are not the same as languages. I would just go a little further and calling it a misnomer. For me that is a helpful framing, especially once you go into visual programming.
- jraph 2y ago
  > A dog is an animal but an animal is not always a dog. In this sentence, "is" describes membership (a bit like isinstance in Python, or instanceof in Java or JS). In a definition, this is not the same "is". In a definition, "is" is the definitional "is", and what is after the "is" is supposed to be a comprehensive list of things you need to match to be called the term preceding the "is" (a bit like "class" or "struct" when you define a type) Given the definition "A dog is a domesticated animal that has four legs and barks", everything that is an animal, domesticated, that has four legs and that barks is indeed a dog, and something that misses even one characteristic is not a dog (though I made up the definition, it is likely wrong). Again, polysemy. Not all uses of be are equal. So: > A language is ... does not mean ... is a language Indeed, though not for the reasons you had in mind when "A language is ..." is a definition of language: both things around your "does not mean" are indeed true (when you were probably hinting at the second part being false, given your dog example), but the first "is" is definitional, and the second is membership. Both are true because the definition actually defines membership for each individual object described by the definition, and by putting the list of requirements of the definition at the beginning of the sentence, you are describing a particular item that trivially matches the definition. Almost like I did in my example (except I used "everything that", instead of "a"). > I think it's clear for the both of us that PLs are not the same as languages As natural languages, yes. Which, granted, we would call just languages in everyday life. > visual programming How is this related? I respect your opinion that language in programming language is a misnomer but have not been convinced so far and the more you are writing, the more I'm convinced that your internal definition of language is just too restrictive and I'm also not seeing how this restriction/framing actually helps. I'm a simple person. You give me a definition of A, you give me something S, if S has all the characteristics given in the definition, S is definitely a A according to this definition. Now, we can discuss the definition and how it's not entirely (or at all) satisfying, complete, appropriate or useful, and how it could be improved, or how the trick of using qualifiers to further restrict the definition does not cut it. On this last point, I, so far, have not felt the need to change the definition of language I know to express my ideas clearly, and have been happy to use qualifiers like "natural" or "programming" when needed and unclear from the context. In particular, I have not encountered a situation where calling a programming language a language lead to confusion or bad consequences.