|
Shog9 wrote: what matters is that you're precise and thorough
You forgot "natural" and "convenient". There are many forms of expression that are precise and thorough but are nevertheless not desirable because they are obscure or unnatural. This definition, for example, is precise and thorough:
numDays=0x0111;
But I wouldn't want to code that way, and certainly wouldn't want to address my apparently intelligent machine like that.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: But I wouldn't want to code that way, and certainly wouldn't want to address my apparently intelligent machine like that.
Sometimes, i don't want an intelligent machine. Sometimes, i want a stupid machine that does exactly what i tell it to do. If i want to be sent a reminder every two weeks exactly, then i expect that to happen - and it's less important to me whether i'm required to specify that time period in weeks, days, or BCD milliseconds than that it happens exactly as i say it should.
That said, convenience is nice, so long as i don't sacrifice accuracy. Ever check out Google Calendar? I can send a text message, "Dinner at 6PM" to #48368, and sure 'nuff, i'll have a reminder sent back to me at ten to six. Unless i'm travelling. In which case, it would have made more sense for me to specify the time relative to GMT, even though that sacrifices convenience for precision.
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: Sometimes, i don't want an intelligent machine... i'm travelling... it would have made more sense for me to specify the time relative to GMT...
No, it would have made more sense for you to want an intelligent machine that understood time zones and took that into consideration when you were travelling.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: No, it would have made more sense for you to want an intelligent machine that understood time zones and took that into consideration when you were travelling.
The point is, i'm travelling. I'm not necessarily in the same timezone when i expect to receive the reminder as i was when i asked that it be sent. Did i mean 6PM Mountain time? 6PM Central? Even if the system is smart enough to figure out where i am and where i was, there's a pretty good chance it'll pick the wrong 6PM. Which isn't to say the system shouldn't make an effort - it should - but if i'm really concerned about accuracy, i'd want to remove all ambiguity.
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: but if i'm really concerned about accuracy, i'd want to remove all ambiguity.
Which you could, simply by saying "6:00 pm GMT" to your intelligent machine. So what's the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: So what's the problem?
No problem, so long as i understand what that's actually gonna do. As i said, the syntax doesn't really matter, so long as i'm able to specify exactly what i want.
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: the syntax doesn't really matter, so long as i'm able to specify exactly what i want...
...in a convenient and natural way.
|
|
|
|
|
Why can't you let him have his opinion without injecting your own into it.
One of the great things about being an individual is having our own view. When we find similarities, cool, when we don't, oh well.
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
Now you're dictating his wants.
That is just wrong. You can't coerce acceptance of your point of view.
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
Convenience is a matter of opinion. Seeing numDays = 7*2 is much more convenient to me than your PE examples. Its just a matter of opinion and taste. I do better with mathmatical and syntactical abstractions than I do with English. One of the reasons I chose this vocation.
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you. Symbolic languages are much less verbose than natural languages. Natural languages also have nuances and other odd elements to it. You have none of that in symbolic languages - they're to the point and accurate (at least as accurate as you want it to be).
--
[LIVE] From Omicron Persei 8
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: It always surprises me how people say they want their code to be transparent but nevertheless insist on using languages that require the most obtuse and unnatural syntax (as in "numDays = 7*2").
How is that obtuse? If you've done any basic mathematics it's very simple to understand and cannot be interpreted in the multiple ways in which English can be.
|
|
|
|
|
Ed.Poore wrote: How is that obtuse? If you've done any basic mathematics it's very simple to understand and cannot be interpreted in the multiple ways in which English can be.
It's obtuse because the expression is not natural for people outside of the programming community (which is tiny compared to the billions of others on the planet). For example, "numDays" is not a word in any dictionary I know. And "camel case" is not a normal form of capitalization. And "*" is not the usual symbol for multiplication. And "=" is not the normal way of saying "is". In other words, it's an unnatural mode of expression because it's not the way that most people would naturally express the thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, the chances of non-programmers writing programs? 
|
|
|
|
|
Ed.Poore wrote: Hmm... non-programmers writing programs?
Picture, for example, a PAL 3000 installed in a home. The homeowner says, "PAL, wake me up at 6:00 on weekdays, except for the first Thursday of every month. Use classical music." And in so doing, the homeowner has written a program. Perhaps your definition of "program", both as a noun and a verb, is too narrow?
|
|
|
|
|
You wouldn't be programming the system more like setting up some rules for a program written by programmers to activate certain tasks.
|
|
|
|
|
Ed.Poore wrote: You wouldn't be programming the system more like setting up some rules for a program written by programmers to activate certain tasks.
But how can one tell the difference, when all of the programs - top to bottom - are written in the same natural language? If someone says, "PAL, turn on pin 3 of the parallel port," is he a programmer or a user?
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: But how can one tell the difference, when all of the programs - top to bottom - are written in the same natural language? If someone says, "PAL, turn on pin 3 of the parallel port," is he a programmer or a user?
Let's see here. The original post was written in a c-like variant, say C, C++, Java, or C#. We're not talking about PAL and we're not talking about a natural language interface, and the phrase "The number of days in two weeks is 7 times 2 which equals 14" cannot be used in any of the potential languages implied by the first post.
So what, exactly, is your point? It seems to me that you're taking a conceptual framework (representations of abstract concepts in succinct and accurate ways) and extending it into a realm where it is wholly impractical (e.g., the programming language itself inherently limits the clear-language expressibility of certain concepts) for the mere purpose of.. what? Picking a fight? Having the last word?
For someone programming in any c-like variant, the expression "numDays = 7 * 2;" is sufficiently meaningful to be useful, because there's a good bet the maintainer has some familiarity with the language. That's usually almost always all that matters.
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Sears wrote: So what, exactly, is your point? ... "numDays = 7 * 2;" is sufficiently meaningful to be useful...
My point is this. If "numDays = 7*2" is better than the original because it is more clear and natural, then a series of definitions including:
A week is 7 days.
A day is 24 hours.
should be considered even better for the same reasons. "Sufficiently meaningful to be useful" and "ideal" are not the same thing.
Patrick Sears wrote: "The number of days in two weeks is 7 times 2 which equals 14"
It's interesting how, when talking natural language programming, people dream up the most obnoxiously wordy expressions they can muster (as you have above). That kind of expression is wholly unnecessary and would rarely (if ever) be used in everyday conversation. Our compiler, having been given definitions like those above (in any order), will automatically handle other expressions such as "2 weeks" (including the implicitly defined plural of "week").
So back to the point. This is the 21st century. It's time we said goodbye to the primitive programming languages of the past. We have done better already, we can do better still, and we should not give up until we're speaking to our machines as if they were men.
This is the "Hall of Shame" forum. We, as programmers, should be ashamed of the state of the industry after all these years.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: Our compiler, having been given definitions like those above (in any order), will automatically handle other expressions such as "2 weeks" (including the implicitly defined plural of "week").
The point I think is that the C-variant doesn't require setting up those definitions first, so its more natural and efficient. One statement verses a list of definitions.
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: My point is this. If "numDays = 7*2" is better than the original because it is more clear and natural, then a series of definitions including:
A week is 7 days.
A day is 24 hours.
should be considered even better for the same reasons. "Sufficiently meaningful to be useful" and "ideal" are not the same thing.
No, they're not better. They're wordier.
So, did you grow tired of your Ilion character?
--
For External Use Only
|
|
|
|
|
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
So, did you grow tired of your Ilion character?
It was him wasn't it? Amazing that he was quiet throughout that period, then starting posting more frequently when Ill Yon left.
Or, as I more suspect, it was his kid or a disciple.
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm confident that it was either him or some other nut job in his sect. There are eerie similarities in their writing styles...
--
Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
|
|
|
|
|
But now you're talking about interfacing with a programmed application. Namely our PAL.
You are scheduling a task with a programmed application. Do you think that the average person would be able to Create PAL?
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
Amen bro.
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
