5 ms·

I don't like these natural language programming languages you see that it makes grammatical sense and then the brain infers that it can understand anything tha

by adrusi 14y ago

I don't like these natural language programming languages you see that it makes grammatical sense and then the brain infers that it can understand anything that makes gramatical sense. In the end, it's just as hard to remember what subset of the english language it can understand as it is to learn a new grammar.

joelhaasnoot 14y ago
This example might work if they implement a rich grammar, since a generation of people who are now in their 20-30s were used to text adventures. If you knew text adventures I think you'd understand the scope of this. But yes, if you're new to programming you'll probably be quite frustrated by the limited grammar.
loup-vaillant 14y ago
Current programming languages already use English words. I believe we already have experiences that demonstrate that it helps. If the syntax of the language also match English, my intuition tells me it will probably work. Care to experiment?
zitterbewegung 14y ago
I think it might be useful if your objective is only to write interactive fiction. http://inform7.com/ http://inform7.com/
netcan 14y ago
Isn't there an advantage to just being able to intuitively read it, even if there is no advantage when writing?
- aneth4 14y ago
  You can't intuitively know what it does without understanding the logical flow of the "program" and what the commands do. I had no idea what this program did until I saw the output. If someone learns the logical meaning of these words, they are better off learning a proper programming syntax.
  - ThomPete 14y ago
    But you can test it in a very forgiving environment and thus learn about variables, input and output.
VMG 14y ago
I agree. Kids get taught math symbols "+", "-" and "=" pretty early and don't write equations as full sentences. Using symbols is a vital skill and makes things easier to understand, not harder.
ThomPete 14y ago
I think you are thinking about this exactly the wrong way. You don't start with the abstract. You start with the concrete.
- Jach 14y ago
  So, teach them ARM9/Arduino/PIC/X86/other assembly? (I wonder how many people here as kids first learned to program by typing in assembly programs from magazines.)
  - ThomPete 14y ago
    Just because we used to do something does not mean it's the most effective way to do it. The point here is to teach children (not just hacker wiz kids) some basic premises of programming without making it about programming. It's pretty clever IMHO and it allow children to create exactly the world they want to create whether that is vampires or bunny land.
    - hobin 14y ago
      "Just because we used to do something does not mean it's the most effective way to do it." True, but the fact that we used to do it also doesn't mean that it must be broken. I doubt many of would be better programmers if we had a more child-friendly programming language to learn when we were young.
      - ThomPete 14y ago
        Instead of thinking about this as a way to learn programming think about it as a way to internalize the principles of programming by removing some of the abstraction. Think of this as php for children. An easy to use forgiving environment that welcome everyone not just the few who have the stamina and interest to learn assembler. And think of this as the future of programming languages as they will become more and more abstracted from the core. Those who want to dig deeper can.
- Zak 14y ago
beshrkayali 14y ago
I think not actually. I think it's pretty helpful to get young kids to understand the logic first and then get introduced to programming operators and other weird characters. It would be interesting to see if there's any research or papers on this.
- ThomPete 14y ago
  There is plenty. http://www.papert.org/works.html http://www.papert.org/works.html
drsim 14y ago
I agree. This language is too far abstracted from the standard paradigms, hell I even have trouble bending my brain to this structure. I've been programming for 12 years. When I was eight we had a turtle in our classroom, driven by Logo on a BBC Micro. No child had trouble understanding Forward 30, Left 10 and seeing the physical turtle make those moves. Adding in recursion was pretty straightforward too, and you could see the results (right or wrong) straight away as the little guy makes his moves. I'm not suggesting Logo is right, but kids shouldn't be underestimated. This language seems patronising. App Inventor is much more in the right direction http://www.appinventor.mit.edu/ http://www.appinventor.mit.edu/.

by adrusi 14y ago

joelhaasnoot 14y ago

This example might work if they implement a rich grammar, since a generation of people who are now in their 20-30s were used to text adventures. If you knew text adventures I think you'd understand the scope of this. But yes, if you're new to programming you'll probably be quite frustrated by the limited grammar.

loup-vaillant 14y ago

Current programming languages already use English words. I believe we already have experiences that demonstrate that it helps. If the syntax of the language also match English, my intuition tells me it will probably work. Care to experiment?

zitterbewegung 14y ago

I think it might be useful if your objective is only to write interactive fiction. http://inform7.com/ http://inform7.com/

netcan 14y ago

Isn't there an advantage to just being able to intuitively read it, even if there is no advantage when writing?

aneth4 14y ago
You can't intuitively know what it does without understanding the logical flow of the "program" and what the commands do. I had no idea what this program did until I saw the output. If someone learns the logical meaning of these words, they are better off learning a proper programming syntax.
- ThomPete 14y ago
  But you can test it in a very forgiving environment and thus learn about variables, input and output.

VMG 14y ago

I agree. Kids get taught math symbols "+", "-" and "=" pretty early and don't write equations as full sentences. Using symbols is a vital skill and makes things easier to understand, not harder.

ThomPete 14y ago

I think you are thinking about this exactly the wrong way. You don't start with the abstract. You start with the concrete.

Jach 14y ago
So, teach them ARM9/Arduino/PIC/X86/other assembly? (I wonder how many people here as kids first learned to program by typing in assembly programs from magazines.)
- ThomPete 14y ago
  Just because we used to do something does not mean it's the most effective way to do it. The point here is to teach children (not just hacker wiz kids) some basic premises of programming without making it about programming. It's pretty clever IMHO and it allow children to create exactly the world they want to create whether that is vampires or bunny land.
  - hobin 14y ago
    "Just because we used to do something does not mean it's the most effective way to do it." True, but the fact that we used to do it also doesn't mean that it must be broken. I doubt many of would be better programmers if we had a more child-friendly programming language to learn when we were young.
    - ThomPete 14y ago
      Instead of thinking about this as a way to learn programming think about it as a way to internalize the principles of programming by removing some of the abstraction. Think of this as php for children. An easy to use forgiving environment that welcome everyone not just the few who have the stamina and interest to learn assembler. And think of this as the future of programming languages as they will become more and more abstracted from the core. Those who want to dig deeper can.
Zak 14y ago

beshrkayali 14y ago

I think not actually. I think it's pretty helpful to get young kids to understand the logic first and then get introduced to programming operators and other weird characters. It would be interesting to see if there's any research or papers on this.

ThomPete 14y ago
There is plenty. http://www.papert.org/works.html http://www.papert.org/works.html

drsim 14y ago

I agree. This language is too far abstracted from the standard paradigms, hell I even have trouble bending my brain to this structure. I've been programming for 12 years. When I was eight we had a turtle in our classroom, driven by Logo on a BBC Micro. No child had trouble understanding Forward 30, Left 10 and seeing the physical turtle make those moves. Adding in recursion was pretty straightforward too, and you could see the results (right or wrong) straight away as the little guy makes his moves. I'm not suggesting Logo is right, but kids shouldn't be underestimated. This language seems patronising. App Inventor is much more in the right direction http://www.appinventor.mit.edu/ http://www.appinventor.mit.edu/.