Are programming languages technically a language?
-
We consider the question from both sides because, as it turns out, there are no easy answers.
Voulez-vous coder avec moi ce soir ?
-
We consider the question from both sides because, as it turns out, there are no easy answers.
Voulez-vous coder avec moi ce soir ?
I think it would help if we knew what was the point of the question?!
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
I think it would help if we knew what was the point of the question?!
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
"A drug is a substance, that when injected into a rat, will produce a report." This is a linguistical analogue.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
We consider the question from both sides because, as it turns out, there are no easy answers.
Voulez-vous coder avec moi ce soir ?
After reading the article I'd say the arguments against are all flawed. - They only exist in written form. So what, nothing in the definition of language requires a language be spoken. - Not evolving naturally isn't a good criteria. Humans change their languages, many times to their detriment. Programming languages don't change that fast and usually keep backwards compatibility. This is possibly the strongest argument against programming languages being languages but even it falls short when considering that "dead" languages such as Latin no longer change over time. - The don't evolve naturally. Of course they don't - we create the machines and the languages are created to communicate with our machines. - They aren't used for communications between humans. Anyone who has a cat or dog knows that language isn't just for communications between humans. The example of translation is also contrived as it's far easier to translate programs between languages than it is to translate human languages. There are so many more nuances and traps for the unwary when translating human languages that it catches even professional translators on occasion. Bottom line - this author has zero clue about what he's writing about.
-
"A drug is a substance, that when injected into a rat, will produce a report." This is a linguistical analogue.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
I don't understand your point ;P Maybe you didn't understand mine either. To put it another way, let's say you tell me authoritatively that programming language are indeed languages, or not. Well.. so what? Why should I care?
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
I don't understand your point ;P Maybe you didn't understand mine either. To put it another way, let's say you tell me authoritatively that programming language are indeed languages, or not. Well.. so what? Why should I care?
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
My point was that this article was written solely to increase the writer's publication count.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
My point was that this article was written solely to increase the writer's publication count.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Haha, cheeky! :)
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
After reading the article I'd say the arguments against are all flawed. - They only exist in written form. So what, nothing in the definition of language requires a language be spoken. - Not evolving naturally isn't a good criteria. Humans change their languages, many times to their detriment. Programming languages don't change that fast and usually keep backwards compatibility. This is possibly the strongest argument against programming languages being languages but even it falls short when considering that "dead" languages such as Latin no longer change over time. - The don't evolve naturally. Of course they don't - we create the machines and the languages are created to communicate with our machines. - They aren't used for communications between humans. Anyone who has a cat or dog knows that language isn't just for communications between humans. The example of translation is also contrived as it's far easier to translate programs between languages than it is to translate human languages. There are so many more nuances and traps for the unwary when translating human languages that it catches even professional translators on occasion. Bottom line - this author has zero clue about what he's writing about.
obermd wrote:
Humans change their languages, many times to their detriment. Programming languages don't change that fast and usually keep backwards compatibility.
That doesn't mean that the changes are to their detriment too :rolleyes: ;) :-D
obermd wrote:
Bottom line - this author has zero clue about what he's writing about.
surprise, surprise...
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
After reading the article I'd say the arguments against are all flawed. - They only exist in written form. So what, nothing in the definition of language requires a language be spoken. - Not evolving naturally isn't a good criteria. Humans change their languages, many times to their detriment. Programming languages don't change that fast and usually keep backwards compatibility. This is possibly the strongest argument against programming languages being languages but even it falls short when considering that "dead" languages such as Latin no longer change over time. - The don't evolve naturally. Of course they don't - we create the machines and the languages are created to communicate with our machines. - They aren't used for communications between humans. Anyone who has a cat or dog knows that language isn't just for communications between humans. The example of translation is also contrived as it's far easier to translate programs between languages than it is to translate human languages. There are so many more nuances and traps for the unwary when translating human languages that it catches even professional translators on occasion. Bottom line - this author has zero clue about what he's writing about.
I'd argue that programming languages *are* used to communicate between humans. A well-written program should be readable by other humans.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.