Author |
Topic: foolishness of "natural language programming& (Read 4622 times) |
|
nakli
Junior Member
 
Gender: 
Posts: 62
|
 |
foolishness of "natural language programming&
« on: Nov 17th, 2010, 4:14am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667.html
Now Edsger W.Dijkstra is a wise man.
His such discussion about other things like algol, ada etc. have proven to be true.
I respect the man but disagree here. I have no solid reason, just that I wouldn't like to believe something as impossible.
He makes some good arguments. Thought we might discuss.
|
|
 IP Logged |
I was born naked on a bed with a lady.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: foolishness of "natural language programm
« Reply #1 on: Nov 17th, 2010, 2:30pm » |
Quote Modify
|
He doesn't say natural language programming might not be possible. He mostly says that it may not simplify the programming as much as people think it would. And I think he's right; because most people have trouble articulating what they want even in natural language. So you would have a computer taking a guess at what they might want, and since it isn't clearly specified, it will go wrong pretty often. (Which isn't to say it won't ever go wrong if you have a programmer in the middle translating a client's need into software, but at least the computer will do what it is told and not take a guess at it).
I also think he's right that formalisms actually make it easier and faster to tell a computer what exactly you want it to do. Between two people that understand the language of mathematics, a formula is often a much more concise and clearer way to share knowledge than trying to put it into just words.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
JiNbOtAk
Uberpuzzler
Hana Hana No Mi
Gender:
Posts: 1187
|
|
Re: foolishness of "natural language programm
« Reply #2 on: Nov 17th, 2010, 10:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
A very interesting read. I had to agree with the author, using natural language for programming might be possible, but it would very difficult to get consistent results. A simple example can be seen in examples of formal letter writing; different authors have different opinions on the do's and don'ts. And that is just writing letters, imagine having a programming language.
Even with AI, I don't think it's going to be that easy. Different people speak differently, there are nuances, similes that come into play. So, unless there's a way to actually pick someone's brain and understand what he or she really means..we're pretty stuck on the available languages.
Quote:| ..some people found error messages they couldn't ignore more annoying than wrong results,.. |
|
So true, back when we dabbled in programming, error messages are usually punctuated with colourful words from the programmers. Our tutor thought it was funny, there were some words we invented just for a particular error message.
|
|
IP Logged |
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
|
nakli
Junior Member
Gender:
Posts: 62
|
|
Re: foolishness of "natural language programm
« Reply #3 on: Nov 18th, 2010, 2:38pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Author died in 2002.
Any idea when this might have been written?
( Some say around 1978 )
Is it important?
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 18th, 2010, 2:39pm by nakli » |
IP Logged |
I was born naked on a bed with a lady.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: foolishness of "natural language programm
« Reply #4 on: Nov 19th, 2010, 3:31am » |
Quote Modify
|
Considering the numbering, and the archive at http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/index06xx.html I'd say 1978 is probably right.
I don't think it matters much with regards to the arguments, since they don't depend on the state of technology. Formalisms also help to ease human-to-human communication, by adding precision and clarity. So even if a computer had the level of intelligence needed to understand what its human-language-programmer was saying, it would still hold true that using a formalism would probably be both more precise and faster. Natural language is ambiguous, and to clear that ambiguity up you need to use more language.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: foolishness of "natural language programm
« Reply #5 on: Nov 20th, 2010, 6:16am » |
Quote Modify
|
Interestingly, in the previous paper he relates how he solved the product/sum metapuzzle in his head. 
|
|
IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
nakli
Junior Member
Gender:
Posts: 62
|
|
Re: foolishness of "natural language programm
« Reply #6 on: Nov 21st, 2010, 8:11am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 20th, 2010, 6:16am, ThudanBlunder wrote:| Interestingly, in the previous paper he relates how he solved the product/sum metapuzzle in his head. |
|
...and the sister in the sidenote !
|
|
IP Logged |
I was born naked on a bed with a lady.
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7527
|
|
Re: foolishness of "natural language programm
« Reply #7 on: Dec 1st, 2010, 6:53am » |
Quote Modify
|
In that paper he says:
"Later I heard that some people when confronted with it, instead of solving it themselves, with or without pencil and paper, went to such extremes as writing a computer program for it!"
Extreme? Well... I thought that is the most natural thing to do.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
jonydec
Newbie
Posts: 2
|
|
Re: foolishness of "natural language programm
« Reply #8 on: Jun 17th, 2012, 9:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Whether they're better or not is viewpoint, but that looks like some mutated combination of COBOL and BASIC, which is most definitely epically bad.
So in my view, no. I think somewhat to-the-point dialects that still use legible verbs/adjectives/names are better (C++, C#, PHP, etc are my recommended languages).
Some dialects begin to get too high-level and/or verbose, creating the real sense so abstracted it's difficult to know what does what. Some are too low-level and brief, pushing you to clearly condition everything you want done. A stability between legibility and brevity, with energy and versatility, is what is best for growth.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print