Human-language-level programming

[Quantum_Christmas]

@OP: surely this thread shows exactly why "human-language-level programming" [sic] would be a bad idea — the inherent ambiguity is appalling...

@OP: surely this thread shows exactly why "human-language-level programming" [sic] would be a bad idea — the inherent ambiguity is appalling...
--snip--.

Agreed

@Head_on_a_Stick, @jibberjabber,

An intelligent compiler will ask for clarification whenever there’s an ambiguity and may suggest improved wordings to resolve the issue. Writing a program will end up being a conversation with an intelligent machine which anyone could handle even if they know nothing about programming - it will be a collaboration with an intelligent system which is in itself an expert programmer. The error messages will be comments and questions just like the ones you’d get if you were co-writing a program with a human programmer. (“When you say “print the result of that part”, do you mean this part [a section of the code is highlighted], and do you want it printed to the screen or the printer?”)

None of that will stop you putting in a line of C or any other programming language if you want to, but most of the work will simply be done in natural language, typically at a much higher level with the compiler working out how to carry out the tasks asked of it. The end user will also become a programmer, telling the machine how (s)he would prefer things to be done, and the machine will comply. That will rarely be done through anything other than natural language.

Where natural language is ambiguous, the machine can simply ask for clarification to make sure it has understood the instruction the right way, and if it hasn’t, it can help the programmer improve the wording of the instruction.

[Quantum_Christmas]

@OP: surely this thread shows exactly why "human-language-level programming" [sic] would be a bad idea — the inherent ambiguity is appalling...

@OP: surely this thread shows exactly why "human-language-level programming" [sic] would be a bad idea — the inherent ambiguity is appalling...
--snip--.

Agreed

@Head_on_a_Stick, @jibberjabber,

An intelligent compiler will ask for clarification whenever there’s an ambiguity and may suggest improved wordings to resolve the issue. Writing a program will end up being a conversation with an intelligent machine which anyone could handle even if they know nothing about programming - it will be a collaboration with an intelligent system which is in itself an expert programmer. The error messages will be comments and questions just like the ones you’d get if you were co-writing a program with a human programmer. (“When you say “print the result of that part”, do you mean this part [a section of the code is highlighted], and do you want it printed to the screen or the printer?”)

None of that will stop you putting in a line of C or any other programming language if you want to, but most of the work will simply be done in natural language, typically at a much higher level with the compiler working out how to carry out the tasks asked of it. The end user will also become a programmer, telling the machine how (s)he would prefer things to be done, and the machine will comply. That will rarely be done through anything other than natural language.

Where natural language is ambiguous, the machine can simply ask for clarification to make sure it has understood the instruction the right way, and if it hasn’t, it can help the programmer improve the wording of the instruction.

@Head_on_a_Stick, @jibberjabber,

Will you answer the message that I quoted above?

[Head_on_a_Stick]

An intelligent compiler will ask for clarification whenever there’s an ambiguity and may suggest improved wordings to resolve the issue.

You are very optimistic

I'm not a programmer myself but one thing I have noticed is that programmers in general are absolutely crap at what they do and it is *very* unusual to see a "correct" program unless it is part of a trusted execution chain.

Adding more "features" to the compiler will just result in more bugs, I think it makes sense to keep it as simple as possible and instead insist that the programmer inputs correctly.

EDIT: please don't bump the thread like that, if I had seen that then I wouldn't have replied...

[Quantum_Christmas]

This is ridiculous.
Tell us what you think about the subject, and make it sound human or i'm locking the thread.

This is ridiculous.
Tell us what you think about the subject, and make it sound human or i'm locking the thread.

@dilberts_left_nut,

I don't know in which year will programming languages probably become identical to human language. Perhaps sooner than we think.

The self-driving automobiles are almost here.

And Apple's SIRI and Microsoft's CORTANA and Amazon's ECHO and Wolfram's ALPHA, do allow for very simple programs to be written in spoken English and other human languages.

But keep in mind that all of those systems, including the self-driving automobiles, are not, themselves, programmed in human languages; they are programmed, for the most part, in assembler and various derivatives of the C programming language.

@dilberts_left_nut,

I said what I think about the subject to the Debian User Forums members like a human?

[dilberts_left_nut]

No.
Locked.