Re:Dijkstra On the foolishness of "natural language programm...
by fnord77 on Thursday April 03, 2025 @06:40PM
(#43576335)
I wonder why the legal profession sticks to natural language
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Dijkstra On the foolishness of "natural language programm...
by me-vs-cat on Thursday April 03, 2025 @08:52PM
(#43577221)
Backwards compatibility works differently there, and legalese has not exactly evolved naturally.
Re:Dijkstra On the foolishness of "natural language programm...
by RainyDayTmrw on Thursday April 03, 2025 @10:39PM
(#43577779)
They don't, though. Plenty of words in law mean something precise but utterly detached from the vernacular meaning. Law language is effectively a separate, more precise language, that happens to share some parts with the parent language.
Re:Dijkstra On the foolishness of "natural language programm...
by timacles on Thursday April 03, 2025 @11:09PM
(#43577955)
Because law isn’t a fixed entity, it is a suggestion for the navigation of an infinite wiring
Re:Dijkstra On the foolishness of "natural language programm...
by dzamo_norton on Friday April 04, 2025 @04:27PM
(#43587298)
There was that "smart contract" idea back when immutable distributed ledgers were in fashion. I still struggle to see the approach being workable for anything more complicated (and muddied) than Hello World level contracts.