|chomsky and compiler development GenericInfoService@yahoo.com (GenericInfoService) (2001-11-14)|
|Re: chomsky and compiler development email@example.com (Michael J. Fromberger) (2001-11-17)|
|Re: chomsky and compiler development firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-11-17)|
|Re: chomsky and compiler development email@example.com (Marco van de Voort) (2001-11-25)|
|Re: chomsky and compiler development firstname.lastname@example.org (GenericInfoService) (2001-11-25)|
|Re: chomsky and compiler development email@example.com (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-11-29)|
|Re: chomsky and compiler development firstname.lastname@example.org (Lex Spoon) (2001-11-29)|
|Re: chomsky and compiler development TanjBennett@hotmail.com (Tanj) (2001-12-11)|
|Re: chomsky and compiler development email@example.com (2001-12-15)|
|Re: chomsky and compiler development JeffKenton@mediaone.net (Jeff Kenton) (2002-01-03)|
|From:||Marco van de Voort <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||25 Nov 2001 22:36:30 -0500|
|Organization:||Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands|
|Posted-Date:||25 Nov 2001 22:36:29 EST|
Michael J. Fromberger wrote:
> "GenericInfoService" <GenericInfoService@yahoo.com> writes:
> One of the things I'm personally interested in, is how the principles
> of natural human languages can be applied to produce more intuitive
> computer languages -- but I don't see much research in that area.
From time to time people want to apply natural language principles to
computer languages, or even program computers directly in natural
The question that I'm asking is why people are so sure that they are
better, and actually will improve production.
Formalism and unambiguous syntax are very useful principles for
certain disciplines, and math and beta-science in general have evolved
to use these formal notations way before computers were even invented.
I can see a place for formal languages on the input side of programs.
I can't really see much advantage in using them in programming though.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.