4 ms·
My point is that one doesn't use a natural language to get the job done, one uses a computer language in the likeness of a natural language to get the job done.
by einhverfr 14y ago
My point is that one doesn't use a natural language to get the job done, one uses a computer language in the likeness of a natural language to get the job done. The similarity speeds learning process.
As for an example, you just gave one. But if we wanted to make it more natural-language-like it would be a slightly different syntax:
DECLARE FUNCTION q_rsqrt (float number) THAT RETURNS float AS (
....
);
Now if you think of the natural language phenomenon of ellipsis, this gets shortened essentially to
function sqrt(float number) returns float (
and we might want to change this to make it more concise
float function sqrt(float number) {
}
- pdonis 14y agoDECLARE FUNCTION q_rsqrt (float number) THAT RETURNS float AS ( .... ); And no programmer will want to write in such a language because it's so verbose. I don't mind making programming languages look more like natural languages; I would offer Python as an example of a language that takes advantage of this where it makes sense. But I draw the line at having to type boilerplate; if it's absolutely necessary, at least keep it to an absolute minimum.
- einhverfr 14y agoIt's not that far from PL/SQL and PL/PGSQL CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION foo (int bar0) RETURNS int language plpgsql security definer volatile as $$ begin return $1 + 1; end; $$;
- qu4z-2 14y agoWhich is the reason I can't stand SQL
- Turing_Machine 14y agoI was thinking COBOL. Edit: added sample. http://www.csis.ul.ie/cobol/examples/Conditn/IterIf.cbl http://www.csis.ul.ie/cobol/examples/Conditn/IterIf.cbl
- einhverfr 14y agoNow, there is a program that an ordinary person might be able to read to understand what it does.
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoI wouldn't say that is "natural language like." I would just say that is a very loquacious programming language. I contend the C equivalent of that is more readable. You're using the same sort of constructs in typical programming languages but still lacking anything like the kind of fluid reading and understanding one would expect from the promise of English like programming languages.
- einhverfr 14y agoIf that is the promise it will never be met for the very simple reason I mentioned above: natural language is defined by how the speakers individually use the language. Computer languages are defined by specification. That kiss the flexibility you are asking for right there and that's why you can never program in English. It isn't just a question of imprecision. NULL in SQL is more imprecise than most of the things folks might argue about in English.... The problem is as to how you define correct usage and correct behavior. The only promise that English-like languages can ever fulfil is that they will be easier to learn for English-speakers than languages which are not.
- Cyranix 14y agoThe method signature is the low-hanging fruit. Try the method body. ADD: Do you accept that programming has its basis in mathematics and logic? If so, how is making computer languages resemble human languages a more direct way to improve comprehension than learning some math? Walking up a mountain path is difficult, but not nearly so difficult as moving the mountain until it lies beneath one's feet.
- einhverfr 14y agoI don't see anything wrong with the message body. The point is we are talking about similarity, not identity. I have been clear: you can't program in English but there is some benefit to having languages which are easy for English-speakers to learn. > Do you accept that programming has its basis in mathematics and logic? This is one of the foundations of programming, particularly pronounced in technical fields. As you get to solving higher level problems however, other things come into play. For example, suppose we are building a robot to automate some physical process (let's say, making coffee). We are going to have low-level programming which takes care of ensuring that we can tell the robot what exactly we want to do. If resources are tight we may do all of this low-level, but if we can spend more on resources we might want to have a higher-level (scripting, if you will) environment for brewing coffee. On the higher level, our calculations are not going to be how many j of heat to add to the water. They will be what temperature to bring the water to. We may specify how finely the grounds are to be ground, etc. These instructions will resemble a cookbook recipe more than they will resemble a mathematical diagram, and this is the difference between high-level and low-level languages. > If so, how is making computer languages resemble human languages a more direct way to improve comprehension than learning some math? but the similarity is not just in vocabulary. In English we might write "three plus two equals five" where "plus" is essentially a conjunction, three and two are subjects, equals is a verb, and five is the predicate/object. This works because English has a subject-verb-object verb. Similarly a equals b plus c tells us that we can find out the value of a by adding b and c. In English there is a difference between a = b + c and b + c = a. There may not be a logical difference but there is a semantic difference that does not exist in pure math. So let's imagine math written in another language, Irish Gaelic, translated word-for-word into English and ignoring conjucated prepositions. Irish Gaelic has a verb-subject-object word order, so we might write equals a adding and c. Maybe a nice way to represent this symbolically would be (= a (+ b c)). There wouldn't be a computer language like that, would there be? The problem though that lisp encounters is that it is disorienting, and it is disorienting because the structure bears no resemblance to English. If English-Likeness is a problem, surely that applies to word order and other syntactic similarities just as much as it applies to lexical similarities.