3 ms·

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

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.
- danybittel 2y ago
  > How is this related? That is sort of my point, if you think of a PL as a language, visual programming is not related. You are drawing a line somewhere between PL and visual programming. If you think of a PL as a specification, it is the same thing just presented differently.
  - jraph 2y ago
    You can see the vocabulary and the rules of a language as a specification (for the set of productions of the language) if you wish. A language is a specification (although the reverse might not be true). Visual programming certainly deals with a (visual) programming language, which is still a language. A language doesn't need to be textual. It only needs grammar rules and vocabulary. For instance, taking the example from [1]: - the "set" block and the "for" block are elements ("words") of the vocabulary of "Snap!" - 'an identifier i needs to appear in a "set" block before appearing in a "for" block' is a grammar rule of "Snap!" (I would guess) - 'a "set" block can appear in the body of a "for" block' is also a grammar rule of "Snap!" You can even build a 1:1 mapping between VL and TL, where VL is the visual language and TL is an equivalent textual language, so the notions are essentially the same. For me, where the notion of language can be criticized is that for natural languages, the grammar rules and the vocabulary set are ever changing and not always well defined. The rules + vocabulary thing is a model at best. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_programming_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_programming_language
    - danybittel 2y ago
      Interesting! You seem take "language" really far / different. How about something like editing an image in Photoshop? There's a vocabulary (the commands) they get applied to the image. There are also rules (constraints). One could argue using photoshop is communicating with a computer, what to do with an image. So while I say language is a misnomer for PL, you say it's a misnomer for natural languages. ;-)
      - jraph 2y ago

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.

danybittel 2y ago
> How is this related? That is sort of my point, if you think of a PL as a language, visual programming is not related. You are drawing a line somewhere between PL and visual programming. If you think of a PL as a specification, it is the same thing just presented differently.
- jraph 2y ago
  You can see the vocabulary and the rules of a language as a specification (for the set of productions of the language) if you wish. A language is a specification (although the reverse might not be true). Visual programming certainly deals with a (visual) programming language, which is still a language. A language doesn't need to be textual. It only needs grammar rules and vocabulary. For instance, taking the example from [1]: - the "set" block and the "for" block are elements ("words") of the vocabulary of "Snap!" - 'an identifier i needs to appear in a "set" block before appearing in a "for" block' is a grammar rule of "Snap!" (I would guess) - 'a "set" block can appear in the body of a "for" block' is also a grammar rule of "Snap!" You can even build a 1:1 mapping between VL and TL, where VL is the visual language and TL is an equivalent textual language, so the notions are essentially the same. For me, where the notion of language can be criticized is that for natural languages, the grammar rules and the vocabulary set are ever changing and not always well defined. The rules + vocabulary thing is a model at best. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_programming_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_programming_language
  - danybittel 2y ago
    Interesting! You seem take "language" really far / different. How about something like editing an image in Photoshop? There's a vocabulary (the commands) they get applied to the image. There are also rules (constraints). One could argue using photoshop is communicating with a computer, what to do with an image. So while I say language is a misnomer for PL, you say it's a misnomer for natural languages. ;-)
    - jraph 2y ago