Channel 9 Forums - Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages... http://mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/Dev/App_Themes/C9/images/feedimage.png Channel 9 Forums - Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages... http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums Channel 9 keeps you up to date with the latest news and behind the scenes info from Microsoft that developers love to keep up with. From LINQ to SilverLight – Watch videos and hear about all the cool technologies coming and the people behind them. http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums en Sun, 19 May 2013 02:10:29 GMT Sun, 19 May 2013 02:10:29 GMT Rev9 18 -18 -1 Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages... ... and should therefore be named "Programming expressions". You can't express everthing with a programming language. But that's the most important part of a real language - that's what it makes real: each real language allows you to express everything.

I wonder who came up with the idea to name it "language".

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/195744#195744 Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:13:49 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/195744#195744 Christian Liensberger 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/littleguru/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages... Pardon me but... this is a little absurd. Programing languages arent human languages and therefore they don't allow you to express all the things you as a human would want, and can express using a human language. But they do allow you to fully express everything a computer can and do. There isn't something a computer can do but no language to express it in (not something that I know of at least). Also look at the similarities both human and computer languages evolve over time, to gain greater expressivity and power. What computer languages don't share wit human languages is flexibility. Computer languages are pretty inflexible. "each real language allows you to express everything." - No they don't this is an absolute. If if where so' languages would be perfect and never had to evolve. But they do evolve which means they can't express everything. QED

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/e662c76b8eeb4429a5d29deb0170cfc9#e662c76b8eeb4429a5d29deb0170cfc9 Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:28:08 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/e662c76b8eeb4429a5d29deb0170cfc9#e662c76b8eeb4429a5d29deb0170cfc9 Pop Catalin 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Pop Catalin Sever/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages...
littleguru wrote:
I wonder who came up with the idea to name it "language".

Programming languages are usually expressed using constructs from formal language theory (such as regular languages, context-free grammars, etc.) which existed even before computers.

I'm guessing that's where the term programming language comes from.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/61cfbb0c909e4316ac2c9deb0170cff3#61cfbb0c909e4316ac2c9deb0170cff3 Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:34:14 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/61cfbb0c909e4316ac2c9deb0170cff3#61cfbb0c909e4316ac2c9deb0170cff3 Sven Groot 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Sven Groot/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages...
Sven Groot wrote:

littleguru wrote: I wonder who came up with the idea to name it "language".

Programming languages are usually expressed using constructs from formal language theory (such as regular languages, context-free grammars, etc.) which existed even before computers.

I'm guessing that's where the term programming language comes from.


Yeah, but what makes them a "language"?

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/26bd08512e5b4b649a0a9deb0170d01d#26bd08512e5b4b649a0a9deb0170d01d Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:34:19 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/26bd08512e5b4b649a0a9deb0170d01d#26bd08512e5b4b649a0a9deb0170d01d Christian Liensberger 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/littleguru/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages...
Pop Catalin Sever wrote:
QED


The question is: what makes a language a language? That is what makes me wonder... I mean I had a lot about calculus and logic and this stuff here. But this is just math. Not a language... A language and Math are two different things. They have quite nothing in common.

One thing that makes them very different is: Math is exact, Languages are per se vague.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/94e4b8971ca145cc98d39deb0170d046#94e4b8971ca145cc98d39deb0170d046 Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:36:52 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/94e4b8971ca145cc98d39deb0170d046#94e4b8971ca145cc98d39deb0170d046 Christian Liensberger 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/littleguru/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages...
littleguru wrote:

Pop Catalin Sever wrote: QED


The question is: what makes a language a language? That is what makes me wonder... I mean I had a lot about calculus and logic and this stuff here. But this is just math. Not a language... A language and Math are two different things. They have quite nothing in common.

One thing that makes them very different is: Math is exact, Languages are per se vague.

From Wikipedia: "In mathematics, logic, and computer science, a formal language is a set of finite-length words (i.e. character strings) drawn from some finite alphabet"

EDIT: That is to say, a programming language is a formal language, it is not a natural language. The two are very different. Formal languages are exact, natural languages are not.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/5e92b09cf7564d63aff19deb0170d072#5e92b09cf7564d63aff19deb0170d072 Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:40:27 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/5e92b09cf7564d63aff19deb0170d072#5e92b09cf7564d63aff19deb0170d072 Sven Groot 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Sven Groot/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages...
Sven Groot wrote:

littleguru wrote: 
Pop Catalin Sever wrote: QED


The question is: what makes a language a language? That is what makes me wonder... I mean I had a lot about calculus and logic and this stuff here. But this is just math. Not a language... A language and Math are two different things. They have quite nothing in common.

One thing that makes them very different is: Math is exact, Languages are per se vague.

From Wikipedia: "In mathematics, logic, and computer science, a formal language is a set of finite-length words (i.e. character strings) drawn from some finite alphabet"

EDIT: That is to say, a programming language is a formal language, it is not a natural language. The two are very different. Formal languages are exact, natural languages are not.


OK. That sounds better. I forgot the definition of a formal language. I'm getting old. A formal language, well, we are then working with programming formal languages Smiley

That sounds better.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/fd8de9cc4ecf45be9f659deb0170d09f#fd8de9cc4ecf45be9f659deb0170d09f Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:43:55 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/fd8de9cc4ecf45be9f659deb0170d09f#fd8de9cc4ecf45be9f659deb0170d09f Christian Liensberger 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/littleguru/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages...
littleguru wrote:

Pop Catalin Sever wrote: QED


The question is: what makes a language a language? That is what makes me wonder... I mean I had a lot about calculus and logic and this stuff here. But this is just math. Not a language... A language and Math are two different things. They have quite nothing in common.

One thing that makes them very different is: Math is exact, Languages are per se vague.


Ok it's been a while but perhaps you can find a copy of "the dragon book" called that due to the cover having a picture of a dragon.

it is (or was) the "standard" text book to teach compiler theory.

if you read that book you will see that there is a mathimatic basis for parsing and processing languages.

natural languages are very much harder than c# etc...

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/c7e9c284a4eb44e5bd949deb0170d0ca#c7e9c284a4eb44e5bd949deb0170d0ca Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:56:57 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/c7e9c284a4eb44e5bd949deb0170d0ca#c7e9c284a4eb44e5bd949deb0170d0ca figuerres 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/figuerres/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages... Language evolved to attempt to transfer ideas from on person's brain into another person's.

EG: I need you to pass me that rock, so I'll create a sound that hopefully you'll recognise as meaning I want you to pass me the rock.

Programming languages are the same in the way that they are translating the thought of the computer, ie: the 1's and 0's into functions and commands that we understand, and in turn we can create commands that can be translated in to something the basic parts of a computer can understand.

Discuss all this and more by doing a philosophy degree!

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/8beb6573409048b6bac89deb0170d0f4#8beb6573409048b6bac89deb0170d0f4 Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:44:42 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/8beb6573409048b6bac89deb0170d0f4#8beb6573409048b6bac89deb0170d0f4 PeterM 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/PeterM/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages... A year ago I took a course called Intro to the study of language. I decided to take it simply because I really enjoy studying languages but couldn't decide on a specific language to study that semester. I also have a hobby of designing languages and writing compilers for fun. As the course went on I became surprised to see how closely the material of the course began to correspond to the phases of a compiler.

We first studied phonemes and phones, something that bore similarity to the lexer phase of a compiler. Like natural languages, programming languages only permit certain constructs at their most base level (certain pairings of consonants and vowels simply don't happen in English, and in compilers you aren't permitted to have a non-terminated string literal).

Then we moved on to parsing, a phase which does essentially the same thing in both compilers and natural language. Given information from the lower-level components, you then build a tree representing words, sentences, paragraphs, etc. Or, in a compiler, you build a tree representing expressions, statements, methods, classes, etc. Just as you can't have a noun phrase in english where a noun precedes an article—"Dog the ran" is an illegal sentence—you can't have a binary operator precede its two sub-expressions in C#—so you can't have "+ 5 3"—even though such a construct is perfectly valid in other languages.

Next, we moved on to semantics, which again is pretty much the same between natural languages and programming languages. English has rules that prohibit saying things like, "He was happy" unless at some point I said who 'he' was. Likewise, in C# you can't use a variable unless you declare it first.

It's interesting that the later two segments of the course proved to be very difficult for much of the class, but I had a very easy time thanks to my prior experience with compiler-writing.

To the question of whether or not programming languages are real languages, I would respond with an enthusiastic, "Hell yes!" Are they natural languages? Obviously not. They are artificial languages, created and optimized for a specific purpose.

To the idea that 'real languages' allow you to express everything, that seems to me to be a rather fuzzy definition. I'm not actually aware of any sort of 'turing test' to determine whether or not a language can be considered 'complete'. Anyone know of any?

As a footnote, I've long thought about trying to do something like translate the Bible into Java for the fun of it.
if(abel.offeredBetterSacrificeThan(cain))
    cain.slay(abel);

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/8369bcb1af3c4793b5109deb0170d13f#8369bcb1af3c4793b5109deb0170d13f Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:18:43 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/8369bcb1af3c4793b5109deb0170d13f#8369bcb1af3c4793b5109deb0170d13f CyberGeek 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/CyberGeek/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages... OK. You can design a language that allows you to specify everything that you can express with a natural language.

The problem you get is that no computer can execute that thing anymore. Where I see a big problem are quantities. If you get from the classic logic to the predicate logic, we have already problems. We have problems with the all and exists quantifier.. and it is getting better, if you extend that thing even more...

It is that we could express everything, but it's not executable or interpretable for a computer anymore.

I find programming languages, just to simple to have them classified with the same name as spoken languages. The idea to talk of programming formal languages, sound just better to me.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/51f2e72707264d628d179deb0170d169#51f2e72707264d628d179deb0170d169 Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:31:00 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/51f2e72707264d628d179deb0170d169#51f2e72707264d628d179deb0170d169 Christian Liensberger 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/littleguru/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages... I find Perl to be a reasonably "natural" programming language.  It helps that Larry Wall has a strong linguistics background.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/e8eb094660e249de9e7f9deb0170d191#e8eb094660e249de9e7f9deb0170d191 Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:32:28 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/e8eb094660e249de9e7f9deb0170d191#e8eb094660e249de9e7f9deb0170d191 Maurits 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Maurits/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages... strainge thought just occured to me....

What if Tolkein had written a programming language?

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/01d7a6fbd8cb408382a39deb0170d1b9#01d7a6fbd8cb408382a39deb0170d1b9 Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:07:16 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/01d7a6fbd8cb408382a39deb0170d1b9#01d7a6fbd8cb408382a39deb0170d1b9 Ang3lFir3 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Ang3lFir3/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages...
Ang3lFir3 wrote:
strainge thought just occured to me....

What if Tolkein had written a programming language?


from what I know of him it would not happen; or it would be the language of mordor.

he saw the factory and most of "modern science" as basicly Evil.

"He who breaks a thing to try and understand it has left the path of wisdom"

or words to that effect.

on the other hand if he did decide that creative use of computers was a "white art" then I guess it would be a very elegant language Smiley

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/91de0847c6584ad5a3869deb0170d1e2#91de0847c6584ad5a3869deb0170d1e2 Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:30:54 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/91de0847c6584ad5a3869deb0170d1e2#91de0847c6584ad5a3869deb0170d1e2 figuerres 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/figuerres/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages... All languages have limits and boundaries... and, so called, human languages are no different.

e.g. English has trouble describing values such as colour... you can say something is BLUE but you could not describe blue to a blind person.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/f541aef281bd4e549c3d9deb0170d27e#f541aef281bd4e549c3d9deb0170d27e Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:35:21 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/f541aef281bd4e549c3d9deb0170d27e#f541aef281bd4e549c3d9deb0170d27e spoofnozzle 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/spoofnozzle/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages...
figuerres wrote:

Ang3lFir3 wrote: strainge thought just occured to me....

What if Tolkein had written a programming language?


from what I know of him it would not happen; or it would be the language of mordor.

he saw the factory and most of "modern science" as basicly Evil.

"He who breaks a thing to try and understand it has left the path of wisdom"

or words to that effect.

on the other hand if he did decide that creative use of computers was a "white art" then I guess it would be a very elegant language

Bull.  He stated several times that his works were not allegorical in any way.  They were just stories.  Everyone has applied his stories as allegories for WWI or whatever.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/3864b3262fa2408bbb109deb0170d2aa#3864b3262fa2408bbb109deb0170d2aa Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:56:09 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/3864b3262fa2408bbb109deb0170d2aa#3864b3262fa2408bbb109deb0170d2aa DoomBringer 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/DoomBringer/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages... It's well known that Tolkien didn't like many of the things of the modern world and preferred nature, a theme that can be clearly seen in LotR.

This partially had to with the state of some of the technology at that time. Tolkien hated airplanes for instance, since up till then they had been used primarily for war, and were incredibly unsafe. Little did he know that a few decades later we'd have a booming passenger airline industry, and most importantly that planes could be used for things such as providing aid to disaster zones etc.

Tolkien was also very practical about these things. He didn't mind technology if it was useful. He did use a typewriter, not a pen, to write LotR, and many Tolkien experts I've heard say that had computers existed back then, he would've use them. Smiley

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/b186ed0103cf432cb5919deb0170d2d4#b186ed0103cf432cb5919deb0170d2d4 Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:39:03 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/b186ed0103cf432cb5919deb0170d2d4#b186ed0103cf432cb5919deb0170d2d4 Sven Groot 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Sven Groot/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - Programming "languages" are not real languages... The word "language" is "Programming Language" is a reference to the Mathematical term Language, in which everything (L*) can be defined... A programming language is a subset of the total language (E L)... In mathematics literally the entire human language can be defined, alphabet, grammar, words, sentences etc...

PS - "Real" languages don't allow you to express "everything"... That is why some words are literally untranslatable into some other languages. I could tell you what our language won't convey but I am unable to convey that using this language so I can't ... Moving on...

I stole this wrote:
Arabic

taarradhin [tah-rah-deen] (noun)

Arabic has no word for "compromise" in the sense of reaching an arrangement via struggle and disagreement. But a much happier concept, taarradhin, exists in Arabic. It implies a happy solution for everyone, an "I win, you win." It's a way of resolving a problem without anyone losing face.


]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/20f1566970904f47b5129deb0170d300#20f1566970904f47b5129deb0170d300 Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:40:05 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/195744-Programming-quotlanguagesquot-are-not-real-languages/20f1566970904f47b5129deb0170d300#20f1566970904f47b5129deb0170d300 Manip 18 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Manip/Discussions/RSS