single n lookin
Writing software has been relatively difficult since people began programming computers in the mid-1900s. Although programming a computer is eminently useful -- it gives you fine control of a powerful tool -- it requires learning a programming language. Formal computer programming languages are difficult to write and inflexible, said Hugo Liu, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This makes them "quite a pain to debug and maintain," he said. "Hence the task of programming is rendered inaccessible to the general public."im not sure about the 'diffikult to maintain'. if Mr. hugo finds it diffikult to maintain java source kode im not sure how he would fare when he would have to deal with the same amount of english source kode. writing kode in english is like writing a story. just think about the numerous multiple interpretations possible outtof the story. one might end up producing unique exekutables every time one kompiles. that would be easy to maintain, right Mr. Hugo. the artikle starts on a positive note but then gets into the more realistik state of affairs. the first signs of the diffikulties involved in achieving the target outlined.
Natural languages like English, on the other hand, are universally accessible, said Liu. "Natural language is so semantically rich and flexible that if it could be computationalized as a programming language, maybe everyone could write programs," he said.the semantik richness(basikally this boils down to the ability or capability to komunikate a large measure of information using less energy(bits n bytes here)) and flexiblity(the ability to kommunikate/interpret diffferent information throught the same string literals and vice versa) of natural languages are their greatest strengths and hence used as 'natural languages'. but as is the kase with eternity, ones strength is also ones weakness. the very reasons coz of which natural languages are used for kommunikation would never allow them to be used as computer languages unless computers had the same arkitekture as that of the human brain. does that mean that languages need not evolve any more since the holy grail is teknikally impossible? the idea is to mimik the deterministik transformation process used by the human brain in writing formal program languages so that mankind is exkused of the extra burden. in other words design komputer languages to be as intutive as possible at the same time preserving the strikt syntaktik and semantik strukture required. the artikle further highlights the issue as
Seeing language translated to logical code on-the-fly made the users more conscious of their communicative precision, said Liu. The subjects' quickly began using language that was simple and declarative, which, in turn, improved the usefulness of the system for brainstorming and outlining, he said.