On 25 February 2016 at 17:02, Ralph L. DeCarli <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 2016-02-25 02:31 AM, Logan Kearsley wrote: >> >> >> So, with all that background, I'm now wondering what a programming >> language would look like that is optimized to take the best advantage >> of the human language faculty in order to make it easier to memorize >> and dictate code. >> > In your the article, the magical language depended on demons, which I > assume would understand a sentence such as, "Wash all the dishes on that > table". In the same way that a malevolent genie who wants to turn all of your wishes against you would understand it, yes. In the end, you could be assured that the dishes (for some definition of "dishes") would be clean, but not that you'd be pleased with the side-effects. > Computers understand nothing. > > This means that programmers end up describing simple things in great detail. > Getting the dishes washed would probably require multiple loops for all the > types of silverware and dishes with instructions on picking them up, moving > them to the sink, etc. It would probably be easier to wash them yourself. Yup. This sort of magic would not generally be employed for high-complexity, low-effort tasks of that kind. > You might also take a look at ToonTalk > (http://www.toontalk.com/English/behind.pdf), which encapsulates recursion > and communicating sequential processes in icons. Since the icons all have > names, it probably represents a good level of abstraction for vocal > programming. Thanks; I shall have a look. -l.