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 
(, 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.

Any opinions above may not be responsible.