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". 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. I agree with Piermaria that one would need to create blocks or functions so that depth would become buzzwords, similar to the way 'leverage' or 'proactive' is used in business-speak to refer to some complex process without requiring the speaker to explain (or sometimes understand) the ramifications. When deep structures are required, there would probably need to be some sort of feedback mechanism so that the programmer wouldn't need to remember how many parentheses were unclosed. 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. Ralph -- Any opinions above may not be responsible.