4 ms·

> programming is closer to math, not linguistics It's worth pointing out that actual linguistics is not unlike maths, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forma

by troad 1y ago

> programming is closer to math, not linguistics It's worth pointing out that actual linguistics is not unlike maths, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_grammar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_grammar, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-bar_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-bar_theory, etc. There's an awful lot of vibes-and-feels nonsense about language in the popular press, which one ought not confuse with linguistics proper. In fact, as Casey mentions in this talk, a lot of the earliest ideas in software architecture came from trying to parse languages - both human and computer.

lisbbb 1y ago
[flagged]
voidhorse 1y ago
Yes, of course there is a connection through the Chomskian mathematization of syntax. But when we think about solving problems over domains and relations (e.g think about realizing that the problem of parsing requires traversing a tree like structure) we are dealing with mathematical-logical structures, not linguistic concepts. This is what I meant. I've seen a lot of OOP code that tried desperately to make code reflect the fuzzier relationships between linguistic concepts, rather than the precise ones of logical structure (a lot of this is a consequence of over-encapsulation and excessive information hiding)
- troad 1y ago
  I slightly disagree on the specific point, but agree on the broader point. Formal grammar is not merely a notation for expressing linguistic rules that incidentally makes them appear akin to maths, it's a theory about what language is - a phenomenon rooted in, and best modelled by, formal logic. The reason formal grammar looks familiar to programmers is because computer science has borrowed tons of concepts from linguistics, concepts originally aimed at modelling human language. I agree with you on OOP. In a way, popular ideas about language are not unlike OOP: naive models with inherent contradictions that inevitably devolve into an incoherent mess. Ultimately, a person with a naive conception of how words, objects, and ideas interact is going to make a mess of trying to systematise virtually anything.

by troad 1y ago

lisbbb 1y ago

[flagged]

voidhorse 1y ago

Yes, of course there is a connection through the Chomskian mathematization of syntax. But when we think about solving problems over domains and relations (e.g think about realizing that the problem of parsing requires traversing a tree like structure) we are dealing with mathematical-logical structures, not linguistic concepts. This is what I meant. I've seen a lot of OOP code that tried desperately to make code reflect the fuzzier relationships between linguistic concepts, rather than the precise ones of logical structure (a lot of this is a consequence of over-encapsulation and excessive information hiding)

troad 1y ago
I slightly disagree on the specific point, but agree on the broader point. Formal grammar is not merely a notation for expressing linguistic rules that incidentally makes them appear akin to maths, it's a theory about what language is - a phenomenon rooted in, and best modelled by, formal logic. The reason formal grammar looks familiar to programmers is because computer science has borrowed tons of concepts from linguistics, concepts originally aimed at modelling human language. I agree with you on OOP. In a way, popular ideas about language are not unlike OOP: naive models with inherent contradictions that inevitably devolve into an incoherent mess. Ultimately, a person with a naive conception of how words, objects, and ideas interact is going to make a mess of trying to systematise virtually anything.