Re:Scientists should learn to program
by pixcavator on Sunday November 25, 2007 @05:00PM
(#83400)
>Natural language is easier because I can learn in a minute to say "Hello world" in a language like German.
If that's all you can say in German, it's like _copying_ a "Hello world" program from someone else. That takes two seconds.
I was taking amichail's comparison - writing small programs in python vs learning a new natural language - and making it even more extreme to highlight its unfairness. Apparently nobody gets sarcasm anymore :)
If a student already knows English, then it's better to learn to write small programs in a high-level language than it is to learn another natural language.
Re:Scientists should learn to program
by pixcavator on Sunday November 25, 2007 @09:09PM
(#83436)
I did get it. And I wasn't serious either.
It only takes a minute to learn to say "Hello World" in Python also.
I'm not talking about writing bug-free code for million-line projects. Rather, I'm taking about writing simple small programs. That's easy.
You compared writing small programs in python with taking years to learn a natural language. I pointed out that the two are not equivalent undertakings. It's not a fair comparison.
Natural languages are not 'easier' or 'harder' than programming languages, they're just different kinds of skills. There's lots of evidence for this: some people have aptitude for one, some for the other.
There are at least two very difficult things about natural languages: messy illogical syntax and enormous vocabulary.
For a simple language such as python, you can learn most of the syntax very quickly. Vocabulary (e.g., libraries) takes a bit longer but still requires much less memorization. And you can always create things from scratch.
But you still haven't addressed the main objection here: that you're comparing two different undertakings. You've compared writing a small app in a high level language with learning a natural language. You could have just as easily said it isn't as hard as proving fermat's last theorem, or writing a novel, or composing a symphony. Thsse things also have a few elements in common with writing a short script in a high level language. But these comparisons don't mean a thing.
It's a good question to discuss, if we can get past simplistic apples-to-oranges comparisons. On the one hand natural languages have large vocabularies and cultural context that must be assimilated over time. On the other hand pidgin German works where pidgin lisp does not - natural languages allow more error in the medium.