SCOUG-Programming Mailing List Archives

<< Previous Message << >> Next Message >>

Date:	Thu, 15 May 2003 14:29:55 PDT7
From:	Peter Skye <pskye@peterskye.com >
Reply-To:	scoug-programming@scoug.com
To:	scoug-programming@scoug.com
Subject:	SCOUG-Programming: A slight pause

Content Type: text/plain

Lynn H. Maxson wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> It's good to have your presence here

You realize not everyone shares your view on this . . . :))

> or you believe as I do in the possibility that a
> mono-linguistic programming/specification will evolve.

I do believe that there is a programming f(x) such that f(x)={infinity}.

We can use English to express all of our logic. No need to sometimes
incorporate Farsi or Chinese. Thus it seems likely that your quest is a
valid one.

Are you just seeking a syntax? PL/I, Java, APL and Rexx all have a core
syntax, as does English. Or are you seeking a syntax plus a working
model? The English "working model" extends the syntax "a noun is
followed by a verb" by specifically listing the valid nouns and verbs.
Where are you going?

> We have then the beginning step of comparative
> linguistics for programming languages.

Yes. But are you comparing the syntax or the working model? The simple
DO statement is so very tricky -- if you modify the iterator within the
loop, what should happen on the next iteration? Some people feel the
new iterator value should be maintained, others feel it should be
iterated as if it had not been changed within the loop. Should the DO
syntax allow for an option?

> So why not begin with a concept of domains (operators,
> operands, expressions, and logic) and a set of ranges of
> universes (algorithms)? Why not understand what you can
> directly express? Why not understand for lack of direct
> expression what you can indirectly express? Then finally
> why not understand what you can neither express directly
> or indirectly? When do you need to leave this language
> domain to enter that of another?

Why not write an English language parser that will take an English
language problem and translate it into any number of "programming
languages"? WHY NOT, I say. If the parser needs a clarification then
it can stop and ask.

Where are you going? Are you trying to solidify a master programming
language from components which already exist, or are you walking
backwards and might better create a programming construct from a problem
expressed in English?

I am personally fascinated with the concept of "diagramming of English
sentences". You may remember the days of English class where your
teacher drew sentence diagrams on the blackboard. Can we diagram each
and every English sentence that exists in any given English-expressed
problem, and from those diagrams then create a hierarchy of the words
within those sentences, and from those hierarchies thrust out a unified
problem expression that can be automatically coded into the source for
any programming language? And from those source codes can we then,
through size of source code and benchmarking, determine the "best"
programming language for the job? I believe we can.

Where are _you_ going?

> In short you need only one language.
>
> That language must offer an ease of writing
> equal to or better than those it would replace.

English. It's here now. It works. Have you a complaint with it?

- Peter

=====================================================

To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message
to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,
put the command "unsubscribe scoug-programming".

For problems, contact the list owner at
"rollin@scoug.com".

=====================================================

Return to [ 15 | May | 2003 ]

SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group. OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation. All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.