Mark Harig <idirect...@aim.com> writes:
> Some of the discussion below was getting too far off-topic [...]
Hi Mark,
Your development of the argument below is interesting, and I think it
could be an interesting discussion to have. In this email, though, I
just wanted to mention a couple of points, one of which I think I didn't
get quite right in my previous reply.
>> > Something that's long been a mystery to me is why it is that
> computer
>> > programmers, who spend their days learning and following the rules
> and
>> > idioms of various programming languages, do not want to learn and
>> > follow the rules and idioms of natural languages.
>>
>> Because computer languages are constrained by the specifications and
>> tools that interpret them, whereas natural languages evolve and
> diverge
>> through human usage?
When I read your para above before, it (strangely) didn't occur to me
that it could be intended to include reference to me and the Guile
manual. Hence my general reply above, about the practical constraints
on computer language evolution being tighter than those on human
languages.
Now that that does occur to me, I see that my reply could be read as
implying "yes, I am knowingly not learning and following the rules...".
Just to be clear then, I didn't mean to imply that. In fact I believe
that I and the Guile manual do "follow the rules and idioms of natural
languages." Note in particular that this thread about "i.e.," is
nothing to do with the looseness of human language constraints (i.e.,
the kind of thing that allows many people today to say "you was" rather
than "you were"). It's to do with a convention that has forked in two
standard forms of English.
> 4) Programmers develop strong opinions about what is ugly or clean
> in computer languages, despite the fact that this is not described in
> the
> language specifications. Yet, when something is pointed out as clean
> or ugly in natural language, that developed sense is dismissed.
When you say "dismissed", are you including this thread, and/or Guile
manual discussions in general?
Regards,
Neil
