SCOUG-Programming Mailing List Archives

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

Date:	Thu, 15 May 2003 18:39:47 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:
>
> My general semantics background tells me that the
> interruptions for feedback from the parser requesting
> clarification would lead me to find some other means.

An admission of illogical speech patterns, yes?

> Fortunately computers have no intelligence.

. . . computers and politicians . . .

> we ultimately dumb down the language through one or more
> translation levels to the instruction set (language) of
> some target system.

Baby talk. The machines can grow up, just as we did.

> Thus the intelligence remains with the code writer,
> never transferring in any manner to what he writes.

Fuzzy logic. Think about how you think; most (if not all) decisions are
based on fuzzy logic.

> So I recommend english for the use we make of it
> here to communicate with each other. I look for
> something "near-english", some definable, unambiguous
> subset when a machine enters the communication loop.
> We have to more than dumb down the communication.
> We can't even get that much in it.

If you keep talking baby talk, the kid will never grow. Talk in leaps
and bounds, and let the kid catch up with you.

> We make the same two-language distinction in
> textbooks of a mix of formal and informal language.

Slave owners need a formal language. "Do exactly as I say." The slave
owner uses a subset of his own language to communicate with his slaves.
Yet slaves who do exactly as they are told are expected to use a modicum
of intelligence along with their master's instructions. The working dog
better not run the cattle through the cactus. The working computer
better not try to rewind the hard drive.

> COBOL provides the best example of overcompensation in
> a programming language in swinging the pendulum from a
> paucity of description accompanying second generation
> coding to an unnecessary amount in a third generation HLL.

COBOL is nothing more than a "typical" programming language with
user-friendly keywords. It doesn't understand English.

Parse this sentence: "Read the User Log File and print a report of all
users who consumed more than 3% of system resources." That's not
COBOL. Nor is it a logically flowing program. But there is enough
information in that single sentence to generate a complete program.

> Now three third-generation languages cover everything
> . . . LISP, APL, and PL/I. All that remains lies in
> going from the three, third-generation languages to
> one, all-inclusive fourth generation.

I have no quarrel with your direction. But you need to make your
computer as useable to the non-programmer as your car is useable to the
non-mechanic.

- 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.