1. oh no! more natural language stuff! ack!
Jaques wrote:
>>No, Esperanto is no good for programming.
>>No human language is good for programming.
>>A programming language is not at all a "language"
>>in the sense that English, Hebrew, Esperanto, Chinese,
>>Indonesian, are languages.
right...wrong....hrmmmmm....
cannae make up my mind here :)
seriously, the point is that we make a "programming"
language and a "natural" language....*the same*
the problem is not that there isn't a "human" or
"natural" language that is good for programming,
it's that programming is no good for language.
to wit:
there is translation, versus, *comprehension*
any half-baked programmer can take the dictionary
and make a computer give a specified output for
the input of any word in that dictionary.
this is -not- IMHO the definition of
"natural language programming"
this is translation. translation without comprehension
is as worthwile to us as it is to the UN interpreters and
to any parent currently raising a child. you can hear
the word "no", but what does that ***mean*** to you?
to that child? does it mean "stop"? does it mean "you
are forbidden"? does it mean "at some other point in
time this might be permissible"?
what is the difference between a baby going:
"goo goo gaa gaaa blah goo gaaa blah gaa goo"
and machine language for a computer?
what is the difference?
machine language makes perfect sense to a computer,
just like goo goo gaa ga blah ga goo makes
_perfect sense_ to that baby.
they ***understand*** it. they give it *meaning*
and interpret that meaning and act upon that meaning.
now...all we need to do is expand that comprehension...
not build translators...instead, we build ....
;) what? what do we build??? :)
give up? simple :)
interpreters
in actuality, we need even better than interpreters.
we need something that will allow the computer
to create it's own set of interpretations defined by
its environment in response to its associations which
were created from other simple interpretations.
sooooooooooooooooooo....
let's get to work ;)
child's play.
Mike
--------------------------------------
If it wasn't for typos,
I'd never get any coding done at all.
;)
2. Re: oh no! more natural language stuff! ack!
- Posted by Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen <nieuwen at XS4ALL.NL>
Mar 29, 1998
-
Last edited Mar 30, 1998
Dit is een meerdelig bericht in MIME-indeling.
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BD5B4B.DE7AB360
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mike said:
interpreters
=20
in actuality, we need even better than interpreters.
we need something that will allow the computer
to create it's own set of interpretations defined by
its environment in response to its associations which
were created from other simple interpretations.
sooooooooooooooooooo....
let's get to work ;)=20
=20
You mean, a language evolving from its current context ?
A program that is controlled by context, instead of arguments.=20
That idea already exists at the MS-Lab.=20
You might wanne go see the ms-development site..=20
(I know its MS, but ms-development is stuff from the little =
think-companies they sponser, not MS itself, they always buy technology)
=20
--Most interesting actually is the remark that a programming language is =
merely a method to express a program/idea/algoritm, and thus always =
constraints the possibilities and determines the way you solve a =
solution.
=20
--Pseudo code that works for any language does not exist, merely pseudo =
code for the most common program flow of a language.
=20
I think both statements are right, althrough more than once we 'think' =
in a language, and our ideas do not need to cconverted to a programming =
language, rather the ideas are built up on knowledge and experience with =
a programming language.=20
But note that a programming language that is most accesable for humans =
by using human grammar, expressions, and understatements would be very =
unsafe and unclear. When the context is not given, the chance is small =
all members of the communication (computer, human) are interpreting it a =
bit different. How often doesn't it happen to us, we accidently insult =
somebody while we had no intention to ?=20
Interpretation is relative to culture, in many local and global ways.
I mean, within some area people are likely to place something in the =
same context than two people from accros the world.=20
=20
The context idea is great, but lets not try to make it human context, =
there is simply no real standard for this context, only lots of =
dialects. Instead the most powerfull and logical context should be used, =
a computer will never have a sense of humor, feelings nor emotions, so =
lets not include those in the context, and then you might have a awfully =
powerfull programming language.
=20
Ralf
niewen at xs4all.nl
=20
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BD5B4B.DE7AB360
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 =
HTML//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2>Mike said:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px">interpreters<BR><BR>in=20
actuality, we need even better than interpreters.<BR>we need =
something that=20
will allow the computer<BR>to create it's own set of interpretations =
defined=20
by<BR>its environment in response to its associations which<BR>were =
created=20
from other simple =
interpretations.<BR>sooooooooooooooooooo....<BR>let's get=20
to work ;) </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You mean, a language evolving from its =
current=20
context ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>A program that is controlled by =
context, instead of=20
arguments.</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>That idea already exists at the=20
MS-Lab.</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You might wanne go see the =
ms-development=20
site..</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 =
face=3DArial size=3D2>(I=20
know its MS, but ms-development is stuff from the little think-companies =
they=20
sponser, not MS itself, they always buy technology)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>--Most interesting actually is the =
remark that a=20
programming language is merely a method to express a =
program/idea/algoritm, and=20
thus always constraints the possibilities and determines the way you =
solve a=20
solution.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>--Pseudo code that works for any =
language does not=20
exist, merely pseudo code for the most common program flow of a=20
language.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I think both statements are right, =
althrough more=20
than once we 'think' in a language, and our ideas do not need to =
cconverted to a=20
programming language, rather the ideas are built up on knowledge and =
experience=20
with a programming language. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2>But note that a =
programming language=20
that is most accesable for humans by using human grammar, expressions, =
and=20
understatements would be very unsafe and unclear. When the context is =
not given,=20
the chance is small all members of the communication (computer, human) =
are=20
interpreting it a bit different. How often doesn't it happen to us, we=20
accidently insult somebody while we had no intention to ? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>Interpretation is relative to culture, in many local and global =
ways.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I mean, within some area people are =
likely to place=20
something in the same context than two people from accros the=20
world.</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The context idea is great, but lets not =
try to make=20
it human context, there is simply no real standard for this context, =
only lots=20
of dialects. Instead the most powerfull and logical context should be =
used, a=20
computer will never have a sense of humor, feelings nor emotions, so =
lets not=20
include those in the context, and then you might have a awfully =
powerfull=20
programming language.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ralf</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>niewen at xs4all.nl</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BD5B4B.DE7AB360--
