Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #1400
| From | Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: A Plain English Compiler |
| Date | 2014-10-29 01:28 +0100 |
| Organization | Compilers Central |
| Message-ID | <14-10-015@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <06-02-125@comp.compilers> <14-10-005@comp.compilers> <14-10-008@comp.compilers> <14-10-009@comp.compilers> <14-10-010@comp.compilers> |
> [Man, there's a programming language I'd like to use. > Re COBOL, I am fairly sure that the point of making it look like stilted > English was not that they'd thought it'd make it easier to program, but > that it'd be possible for non-programmers, e.g. auditors, to look at the > code and figure out what it did. -John] Right, and this leads me to the question, *who* is the intended writer of a program in that English language? Is it the customer, needing a program? Have a look at (such) program specifications, and you'll find most of them unusable until rewritten by an IT expert. So could it be the IT expert, in an attempt to make the program specifications readable by the customer? This was the COBOL idea, but I doubt that anybody but the coder ever had a *closer* look at such code. More probably BASIC was the language to bridge the gap between newbies and their home computers, with the famous Rocky Mountain Basic (HP) and Visual Basic (MS) for more powerful machines and ambitious programs. I also doubt that it could be some mathematician, who has little use for English in writing down his formulas; he were better off with a FORTRAN descendant, enriched by mathematical glyphs (operators...). OTOH algorithms are frequently given in verbose form, so that many people would be happy with an according compiler. SQL is another example of a widely used language close to spoken English. Last not least I'm not sure about the many non-native English speakers, which have problems in finding the right English terms for what they want to do. Here APL was an attempt to eliminate language barriers, but with little success - probably due to expensive equipment (keyboards and screens) in the early age of computing. Nowadays Chinese machines were much better equipped for a programming language based on language-independent glyphs. All in all I'd think that it's a good idea when *everybody* has to learn an universal (programming...) language, with texts written in that language being understandable to everybody else, and in the context of this thread *including computers* :-) Apart from Esperanto and Volap|k the Indonesian language IMO is a good example for a simple artificial language, that already allows the native speakers of many hundred different languages to communicate in everydays life. As I don't speak Indonesian myself, I'm not sure about its possible use as a programming language, but as a non-native English speaker I'd assume that it is less ambiguous than other spoken languages, and easier to spell than English :-] DoDi [APL's character set wasn't a big problem -- IBM terminals had APL type elements, and in the mid 1970s we had APL fonts for our bitmap terminals. The problem was mostly that it was hard to teach people how to write and read it (you needed to recognize a lot of idioms), if you wanted a data structure other than rectangular arrays you were out of luck, and it never had very good interfaces to external files. -John]
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: A Plain English Compiler gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com - 2014-10-24 16:33 -0700
Re: A Plain English Compiler lesliedellow@gmail.com - 2014-10-25 06:01 -0700
Re: A Plain English Compiler "Derek M. Jones" <derek@knosof.co.uk> - 2014-10-25 19:51 +0100
Re: A Plain English Compiler "Gerry Rzeppa" <gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com> - 2014-10-30 14:53 -0500
Re: A Plain English Compiler Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2014-10-27 11:54 +0000
Re: A Plain English Compiler Kartik Agaram <ak@akkartik.com> - 2014-10-27 12:25 -0700
Re: A Plain English Compiler Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-10-27 21:45 +0000
Re: reading and writing, was A Plain English Compiler Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2014-10-28 17:37 -0400
Re: A Plain English Compiler Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2014-10-29 01:28 +0100
Fw: A Plain English Compiler "Gerry Rzeppa" <gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com> - 2014-10-30 04:02 -0500
Re: A Plain English Compiler mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2014-11-03 13:15 +0000
Re: A Plain English Compiler Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-10-27 15:07 -0700
Re: A Plain English Compiler Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2014-10-28 15:14 +0000
Re: A Plain English Compiler Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2014-10-28 17:33 -0400
Re: A Plain English Compiler "Gerry Rzeppa" <gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com> - 2014-10-30 17:05 -0500
Re: A Plain English Compiler "Gerry Rzeppa" <gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com> - 2014-10-31 01:05 -0500
Re: A Plain English Compiler "Gerry Rzeppa" <gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com> - 2014-10-31 21:22 -0500
Fw: A Plain English Compiler "Gerry Rzeppa" <gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com> - 2014-10-30 04:01 -0500
csiph-web