5 ms·

They're not directly comparable because humans have an inbuilt ability to learn human languages. The vast majority of people on the planet know more than one h

They're not directly comparable because humans have an inbuilt ability to learn human languages. The vast majority of people on the planet know more than one human language and know zero computer languages. It's literally the opposite of what you're claiming.

zelphirkalt 1y ago
That's very superficial and wrong. It makes a huge difference, whether you have to learn thousands of new words, irregular grammar and (after learning thousands of concepts in the first language) learning a few hundred new concepts, or you learn a computer-understandable language, that has maybe, if very inelegant, 100 keywords, and 100 concepts, most of which you will probably not use often. Compared to these numbers, the fact, that something is a natural language, has very little influence on the outcome. It is the sheer effort needed to learn a natural language, that makes the difference.
wat10000 1y ago
They’re not directly comparable because programming languages are much simpler and much easier to learn. Becoming a good programmer is hard, but that’s not due to difficulty of learning a programming language. Once you’re a good programmer, new languages are easy. A decent programmer should be able to do something useful in a new language in a week or less, and be reasonably competent in a month or two. See how long it takes anyone to learn a human language to that level.
- MaxBarraclough 1y ago
  > Once you’re a good programmer, new languages are easy. Not always. Languages can differ radically. If the new language uses concepts you've never encountered before, you're going to need to do the work of learning those new concepts. An example I've used before: 20 years writing C code for embedded systems won't give you any insight into Haskell's applicatives or monads.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    I bet that C programmer will still learn Haskell way faster than someone with no programming experience, and way faster than just about anyone will learn a human language.
bigfishrunning 1y ago
Learning to program may be hard, but learning programming languages is relatively very easy. In other words, your second programming language is so much easier to learn then your first was. I regularly use several programming languages, and tend to pick up a new one every year. I've been spending the last six months studying my second spoken language; I promise you human languages are much harder to learn.
isaacremuant 1y ago
Have you thought through what you said? You also have an inbuilt ability to learn a computer language. What even is an inbuilt ability? Programming languages are something you read and write and execute. You can learn many and their definition is precise and limited. It's very easy to be able to pick a programming language and use it in relative low amount of time. Human languages are absolutely different. You can't easily pick them up and they carry cultural context, regional variations, and a lot of ambiguity and history. Definitions of those languages tend to be complete or prescriptive but descriptive and evolving. The languages are written, spoken, read and listened to. The variation in all of those is immense. Do you acknowledge any of this or will you double down in the most absurd of points?

zelphirkalt 1y ago

That's very superficial and wrong. It makes a huge difference, whether you have to learn thousands of new words, irregular grammar and (after learning thousands of concepts in the first language) learning a few hundred new concepts, or you learn a computer-understandable language, that has maybe, if very inelegant, 100 keywords, and 100 concepts, most of which you will probably not use often. Compared to these numbers, the fact, that something is a natural language, has very little influence on the outcome. It is the sheer effort needed to learn a natural language, that makes the difference.

wat10000 1y ago

They’re not directly comparable because programming languages are much simpler and much easier to learn. Becoming a good programmer is hard, but that’s not due to difficulty of learning a programming language. Once you’re a good programmer, new languages are easy. A decent programmer should be able to do something useful in a new language in a week or less, and be reasonably competent in a month or two. See how long it takes anyone to learn a human language to that level.

MaxBarraclough 1y ago
> Once you’re a good programmer, new languages are easy. Not always. Languages can differ radically. If the new language uses concepts you've never encountered before, you're going to need to do the work of learning those new concepts. An example I've used before: 20 years writing C code for embedded systems won't give you any insight into Haskell's applicatives or monads.
- wat10000 1y ago
  I bet that C programmer will still learn Haskell way faster than someone with no programming experience, and way faster than just about anyone will learn a human language.

bigfishrunning 1y ago

Learning to program may be hard, but learning programming languages is relatively very easy. In other words, your second programming language is so much easier to learn then your first was. I regularly use several programming languages, and tend to pick up a new one every year. I've been spending the last six months studying my second spoken language; I promise you human languages are much harder to learn.

isaacremuant 1y ago

Have you thought through what you said? You also have an inbuilt ability to learn a computer language. What even is an inbuilt ability? Programming languages are something you read and write and execute. You can learn many and their definition is precise and limited. It's very easy to be able to pick a programming language and use it in relative low amount of time. Human languages are absolutely different. You can't easily pick them up and they carry cultural context, regional variations, and a lot of ambiguity and history. Definitions of those languages tend to be complete or prescriptive but descriptive and evolving. The languages are written, spoken, read and listened to. The variation in all of those is immense. Do you acknowledge any of this or will you double down in the most absurd of points?