Richmond,
>
> "no human language exists per se in nature. no human language popped-up out
> of nowhere."
>
> I feel I may be hanged for something I didn't write :) I did not state that
> human languages popped out of nowhere:-
>
>
> I stated that they were not DESIGNED (excluding Esperanto and "value-pack"),
> but EVOLVED.
I'm afraid there's still some basic misunderstanding here...
1) your original message didn't mention any evolution concept... "for starters,
most human
languages were not designed"... those were your very words...
2) I would rather say "all human languages EVOLVED, therefore they WERE
DESIGNED...
Again, the point I want to make is that there's no such thing as an ideal
language that would exists
somewhere as an abstract entity (which was the original illusion of
linguistics), and various humans
using various forms (more or less tweaked) of it.
A human language exists only when humans are using it. And humans use it
according to their needs,
which vary in space & time, and that's why there are various forms of english
(for instance) also called
"language levels"...
In that context, an "English-like" computer language appears to be a rather
meaningless concept.
I prefer to consider human / computer interaction as another form of
interaction between humans and
a part of their environment, which requires a specific tool : another level of
their natural language with
some specific adaptations & tweakings to fit the situation...
>
>
> The main thrust of my previous message was not to point out the above (which
> should be fairly obvious!),
> BUT to point out that the global extension of the "Computer = Human" metaphor
> is rather destructive; and
> that there might be a dangerous tendency associated with it insofar as an
> "English-like" computer language
> could give the impression that one was having a 'chat' with a computer,
> rather than programming it.
>
> Humans, unlike computers, can interpret things. Computers, unlike humans, do
> exactly what you instruct them to do. Phrases such as "the computer does not
> understand me" are simply anthropomorphisms.
Well, to me the above sounds like some cheap outdated sci-fi / AI concepts...
When teachning your students or giving instructions to your colleagues, do you
have the feeling
you're programing them ? I hope not ! Therefore, why would you feel like
chatting with your
computer when you're programing it with a language closed to english ?
No matter if I write
x=myVar.substr(0,9)
or
put char 1 to 10 of myVar into x
I know I'm programing my Mac and that he'll do what I instruct him (it ?).
Computers are just tools to achieve some goals. And again, I don't see any
reason whu programing
languages should remain computer languages...
Cheers,
JB
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
