Programming Language

[Pincho Paxton]

I started programming about 1980. I tried several languages, but found that Basic Programming was the closest to English so I stuck with it. It's 2012 now, so I have been programming for 32 years. I write computer games, and computer applications. Over the years I have become adapt at thinking in the Basic Programming language. What this means is that I can construct a program in my head ready to be programmed into a computer. But I feel that my thinking has slightly altered. I read a written language and change it into logical algorithms.

 

For example, the term Chicken, and egg is translated into an evolutionary programming loop. In my Basic Language structure the egg comes first, because of age. In programming an evolutionary state you would start with the egg, and evolve it into the chicken. So that program plays in my head when I read Chicken, and egg. I can run the programs in my mind.

 

This thread however is to convey the ability for a programming language to be treated as a form of linguistics. If someone took the Basic Programming language, and made it even closer to English language, we could learn to speak in a form that was part language, and part mathematics, and logic. Then science would be a spoken language that included both the mathematics, and logic all in one go.

 

Now let's step back to Newton who suggested that mathematics was the language of science. Newton wrote out a formula for Gravity, and he said the words 'pull force'. In the mathematics there is no actual suggestion of a pull force. m1, and m2 are mass, and they work with two objects like an asteroid, and the Earth. The asteroid moves towards the Earth, but is it pulled, or is it pushed to the Earth?

 

If linguistics were a programming language especially written for science, and as a taught language in schools, the kids would be able to speak in formulas that could be programmed into a computer. And I find that you are less likely to have a term like 'attraction' misused, or forgotten.

 

Personally, I think that gravity is a push force, and I am annoyed that the formula can work with both forces, because science is ignoring the push force. And it is ignored mostly because of the maths, and the English language not working together. Newton can say that maths is the language of science, but he can also say 'attraction' and confuse Einstein into a few mistakes. Einstein then got the cosmological constant backwards, and I feel that he got the bending of spacetime backwards as well.

 

Maths is not the language of science, it includes features that are mentioned by word of mouth... like 'attraction'

 

Someone should try to mix a spoken language with a programming language.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[7DSUSYstrings]

Hi Pincho,

 

I used Basic, then augmented it with Assemby Language and, when looking for MASM or TASM ended up with Turbo C/C++ and the others faded away. After a few years of this and that, I settled into 2 compilers. EBasic and Delphi7, the latter of course, Turbo Pascal grown up. The EBasic has a nice compliment of routines that interface with API and API Shell commends, where D7 has a plethora of routines including API, GDI and many web based tools, I find it has an excellent repertoire of math routines.

 

What you want can be accomplished as some form of expanded library of math routines. It is not impossible to add voice recognition to the program. If you join http://www.codingmonkeys.com they have a download for members of EBasic for free. I have a copy of D7 PE that is free, but Borland no longer offers support... mostly because Borland isn't anymore. Now it's Embarcadero. They might register you.

 

I'm actually writing a program that serves as a math engine. Other than speech recognition, it involves a library of semi-parsed math routines that offers a wide spectrum salad bar. The other features are a math editor and plotter, but to allow the program to include user additions to the font, I'm using EMF's, so it will be a bit before it's ready.

 

Pushing gravity? You actually want to discuss LeSage and Fatio in one of these forums? I just did a spectacular crash and burn on one site today for putting just such a thread in speculation. I was making fun of Newton for not only being a theist, but allowing his religion (Catholic, if I recall) to cloud his treatment of the subject. Why would he? Same as all the scientific brown-nosers we always have to deal with. He liked to eat.

 

I believe this is a good site to discuss programming, but not pushing gravity and theism. ;)

Edited April 18, 2012 by 7DSUSYstrings

[Pincho Paxton]

Hi Pincho,

 

I used Basic, then augmented it with Assemby Language and, when looking for MASM or TASM ended up with Turbo C/C++ and the others faded away. After a few years of this and that, I settled into 2 compilers. EBasic and Delphi7, the latter of course, Turbo Pascal grown up. The EBasic has a nice compliment of routines that interface with API and API Shell commends, where D7 has a plethora of routines including API, GDI and many web based tools, I find it has an excellent repertoire of math routines.

 

What you want can be accomplished as some form of expanded library of math routines. It is not impossible to add voice recognition to the program. If you join http://www.codingmonkeys.com they have a download for members of EBasic for free. I have a copy of D7 PE that is free, but Borland no longer offers support... mostly because Borland isn't anymore. Now it's Embarcadero. They might register you.

 

I'm actually writing a program that serves as a math engine. Other than speech recognition, it involves a library of semi-parsed math routines that offers a wide spectrum salad bar. The other features are a math editor and plotter, but to allow the program to include user additions to the font, I'm using EMF's, so it will be a bit before it's ready.

 

Pushing gravity? You actually want to discuss LeSage and Fatio in one of these forums? I just did a spectacular crash and burn on one site today for putting just such a thread in speculation. I was making fun of Newton for not only being a theist, but allowing his religion (Catholic, if I recall) to cloud his treatment of the subject. Why would he? Same as all the scientific brown-nosers we always have to deal with. He liked to eat.

 

I believe this is a good site to discuss programming, but not pushing gravity and theism. ;)

 

I don't want to discuss LeSage and Fatio. I believe that their push gravity had flaws in it. I wanted to show that Newton used words, and maths, meaning that maths wasn't the language of science. Newton wrote a formula for Gravity (maths), and said "Push Force" (linguistics). The two didn't gel properly. In a computer simulation however I would have to build physics for mass, and physics for G. I could not simply use the formula F=gm1m2/r^2. I would have to model everything. But even today G, and m are unknown physics. I don't allow unknown physics in my computer programs, so I have to model them properly. I have solutions for m, and G, and they fix most of the problems with science. I came across my solutions when programming an early universe simulation.

 

So in essence I would like an English language that converts to programming language very easily. LeSage and Fatio = Break (because they are faulty programs) Now you would not bring a faulty program into a conversation.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[7DSUSYstrings]

I disagree to some extent, Pincho. We would be learning from others' mistakes.

 

Perhaps I should rephrase my contention about these forums' methodology. When we discuss topics that examine flaws in the mainstream "scientific" blend of findings and speculations, then discuss an alternative finding, we must back our thoughts up with a mainstream article. If we don't a bean counter will move our idea out of the spot we placed it. We encounter rude, mean spirited moderation and all you can do is abandon that forum if you don't like it. I see it as trolls being appointed as moderators. It is the reason I started my own forum and as of yet haven't appointed any mods. I suppose if it weren't that I live in America and like it's 1st Amendment rights, this would be an acceptable practice, but I don't see it as such. I think iof we want to discuss the flaws of Newton LeSage and Newton's buddy Fatio for 2000 posts in mainstream physics we should be able to do so and the only posts that should be removed or members being banned are mean spirited ones, bullies and such.

 

If you were hiring someone to work on a project for you involving time space and gravity, would you hire someone who stifles creative thought or someone who is a fountain of it?

[Pincho Paxton]

I disagree to some extent, Pincho. We would be learning from others' mistakes.

 

Perhaps I should rephrase my contention about these forums' methodology. When we discuss topics that examine flaws in the mainstream "scientific" blend of findings and speculations, then discuss an alternative finding, we must back our thoughts up with a mainstream article. If we don't a bean counter will move our idea out of the spot we placed it. We encounter rude, mean spirited moderation and all you can do is abandon that forum if you don't like it. I see it as trolls being appointed as moderators. It is the reason I started my own forum and as of yet haven't appointed any mods. I suppose if it weren't that I live in America and like it's 1st Amendment rights, this would be an acceptable practice, but I don't see it as such. I think iof we want to discuss the flaws of Newton LeSage and Newton's buddy Fatio for 2000 posts in mainstream physics we should be able to do so and the only posts that should be removed or members being banned are mean spirited ones, bullies and such.

 

If you were hiring someone to work on a project for you involving time space and gravity, would you hire someone who stifles creative thought or someone who is a fountain of it?

 

It's too easy to accidentally store information that you read. 'Attraction' has been stored by most people, and 'Pull'. If reading a word can alter your own physical methology it is considered a risky act to read other none working theories. I only read an old theory after I have solved it for myself. Magnets push iron filings towards themselves.. from your point of view that sounds odd, and it is because you have read something previously. That's why I want a language that includes physics, you can't make a pull work physically.

[phillip1882]

unfortunately, i don't think mixing spoken language with a programing language is feasable at this point in time, as cpus are bad at understanding spoken language. they can understand a few key commands, but that's it. i agree that language is ultamately the key to science, for example F= G*m1*m2/r^2 would be meaningless without an explaination as to what the variables stand for.

i don't quite understand what you mean by push force versus pull force, as this equation doesn't really suggest either. newton proposes that the force is coming form the mass itself, whether we interpret that as a push or a pull make little differance in my opinion;

it's abundantly clear that mass has some effect on gravity, and newton was simply mathematically modeling that effect.

[7DSUSYstrings]

http://jootbox.websitetoolbox.com/post/The-Gravity-Vector-5796672?trail=15#2

 

http://jootbox.websitetoolbox.com/post/Vacuum-Fluctuation-and-the-Surface-Geometry-of-the-Cosmos-5651181?trail=15#1

 

http://jootbox.websitetoolbox.com/post/Pseudocode-Pseudopodious-Pseudonumeric-etcetera...-5795968?trail=15#1

 

 

These are all involving some of my thoughts about all this. I do believe to discuss the pull or push as a correct theory, LeSage and Newton need be compared side by side. To create a language using another language, such as Basic or Pascal, we have to start with the pseudocode and work outward.

 

Let's say we code:

 

Procedure Pull // Here we overload the class "force" to include pull. We include nclude centripetal force as a float. We include "pull" as a constant. etcetera...

 

That would be (roughly) the pseudo-code

 

The entire compilable code will include the class as force : pull and the class will include all the overloaded procedures, variables and functions along with their inheritance.

 

 

Yes, though, we need to have all our ducks in a row and identify which ones are carboard.

[Pincho Paxton]

unfortunately, i don't think mixing spoken language with a programing language is feasable at this point in time, as cpus are bad at understanding spoken language. they can understand a few key commands, but that's it. i agree that language is ultamately the key to science, for example F= G*m1*m2/r^2 would be meaningless without an explaination as to what the variables stand for.

i don't quite understand what you mean by push force versus pull force, as this equation doesn't really suggest either. newton proposes that the force is coming form the mass itself, whether we interpret that as a push or a pull make little differance in my opinion;

it's abundantly clear that mass has some effect on gravity, and newton was simply mathematically modeling that effect.

 

It makes a difference to the Big Bang model. You can't have a big bang with a push gravity as the push forces have to be in front of the inflation process, and that would put the push forces outside of the singularity. So you therefore need spacetime before the singularity.

[Pincho Paxton]

http://jootbox.websitetoolbox.com/post/The-Gravity-Vector-5796672?trail=15#2

 

http://jootbox.websitetoolbox.com/post/Vacuum-Fluctuation-and-the-Surface-Geometry-of-the-Cosmos-5651181?trail=15#1

 

http://jootbox.websitetoolbox.com/post/Pseudocode-Pseudopodious-Pseudonumeric-etcetera...-5795968?trail=15#1

 

 

These are all involving some of my thoughts about all this. I do believe to discuss the pull or push as a correct theory, LeSage and Newton need be compared side by side. To create a language using another language, such as Basic or Pascal, we have to start with the pseudocode and work outward.

 

Let's say we code:

 

Procedure Pull // Here we overload the class "force" to include pull. We include nclude centripetal force as a float. We include "pull" as a constant. etcetera...

 

That would be (roughly) the pseudo-code

 

The entire compilable code will include the class as force : pull and the class will include all the overloaded procedures, variables and functions along with their inheritance.

 

 

Yes, though, we need to have all our ducks in a row and identify which ones are carboard.

 

Yes, a language that includes code is something that would require a complete new rewrite of everything. Very complicated. I'm not exactly sure what my brain is doing to convert words to code, but I see symbols like < and >, and energy levels. I know that I am doing it automatically, but can't describe it very well. But it helps me to solve things from written examples.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[7DSUSYstrings]

Like the computer itself is a finite apparatus, the languages almost universally use and, or, nor and xor as logical operators. A language recognizing say the sentence "gravity pulls or pushes," would need to have a pre-compiler routine that disguises the word from the compiler's syntax. This is one thing I like about Pascal: It has a string variable that is not simply an array of char with a nul character at its end.

 

pseudocode:

 

1 - precompile the string "and" to an integer value.

 

2 - precompile the integer value to a syntactically correct constant that equals a routine.

 

3 - Compile the routine

[Pincho Paxton]

Like the computer itself is a finite apparatus, the languages almost universally use and, or, nor and xor as logical operators. A language recognizing say the sentence "gravity pulls or pushes," would need to have a pre-compiler routine that disguises the word from the compiler's syntax. This is one thing I like about Pascal: It has a string variable that is not simply an array of char with a nul character at its end.

 

pseudocode:

 

1 - precompile the string "and" to an integer value.

 

2 - precompile the integer value to a syntactically correct constant that equals a routine.

 

3 - Compile the routine

 

Yeah, maybe Pascal. I only did one day of Pascal at college, so I am not all that familiar with it. I put this idea out there for a linguistics expert. I think that thinking in programming language is something that is only just coming into our vocabulary. I was one of the early adopters of programming in the home computer market in the UK, and I deliberately stuck with an English language like Basic. Most people moved on to C, but I knew that Basic had more going for it.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[7DSUSYstrings]

I'm pretty busy right now, Pincho, but next month I'll have some time to back to my code writing projects. (...have some serious home improvement projects going on including a lab/greenhouse in the back and a podule in my back yard...) I'll try my hand at writing a rudimentary plain language compiler... say with a 20 word vocabulary to start...

 

I have my forum settings to allow zip files, so I can drop an easy link when the time comes.

[7DSUSYstrings]

I wanted to mention also... I think it's Sirius(?) that pretty much does much of this.

[7DSUSYstrings]

I wanted to mention also... I think it's Sirius(?) that pretty much does much of this.

 

IPod4, AT&T

[CraigD]

I started programming about 1980. I tried several languages, but found that Basic Programming was the closest to English so I stuck with it. It's 2012 now, so I have been programming for 32 years. I write computer games, and computer applications. Over the years I have become adapt at thinking in the Basic Programming language. What this means is that I can construct a program in my head ready to be programmed into a computer. But I feel that my thinking has slightly altered. I read a written language and change it into logical algorithms.

Nice to meet someone from roughly my programmer generation :) - and run across a thread on a subject long near and dear to me. :thumbs_up

 

I wrote my first programs, in a peculiar, hardware (HP) maker-specific BASIC, in 1975, in high school. I really liked programming, and never stopped doing it for very long, eventually making a career of it. To my surprise, there’s little qualitative difference in the coding I did then than that I do now – though, about as I expected, I’ve much more processing speed, and much, much more storage these days.

 

This thread however is to convey the ability for a programming language to be treated as a form of linguistics. If someone took the Basic Programming language, and made it even closer to English language, we could learn to speak in a form that was part language, and part mathematics, and logic. Then science would be a spoken language that included both the mathematics, and logic all in one go.

I think I have some experience somewhat along these.

 

In 1984, I got involved in writing specialized computer languages, in connection with a medical computing lab (the Boston’s Thorndike lab that had years earlier written one called Converse, which was intended to be usable by MDs to write programs to take medical histories and analyze the results, and with connections to the origins of the MUMPS programming language, which was originally written with similar goals nearly 20 years earlier. There’s little internet-accessible literature on Converse. These hypography posts links: 1, 2 are a couple, with references to a couple of the others. Obscurity aside, the idea of specialized languages, which appears to me to have had a brief “golden age” spanning the 1970s and ‘80s, is fairly simple: writing frontend languages that are easier for subject experts to program in than more general-purpose languages. It’s one of many programming appealing ideas that didn’t really take off, though some might argue that some somewhat well-known languages, like Prolog, and CLIPS, are examples of it that did, and some very well-known ones like, COBOL started as examples, then became used more generally.

 

However, I get the sense that what you’re describing is more like the way the fictional HAL than the more natural language-looking, yet still fairly rigid computer language I worked on: a computer that could carry on a somewhat ordinary natural language conversation with your, then write a computer program to do what you ask.

 

Despite widespread expectations around the time 2001 was released (1967) and about the next 10 years that such a program would exist by at latest the 1990s (the movie states that HAL “became operational” in 1992, it’s novelization, 1997), that hasn’t happened yet. IMHO, this is because it’s proven a far harder challenge than most people, actual programmers and not, expected.

 

I wanted to mention also... I think it's Sirius(?) that pretty much does much of this.

I believe you mean Siri, formerly a proprietary iOS app, since the iPhone 4S, integrated in to iOS.

 

I don’t have an iPhone/Pod/Pad, but have played with Siri on a company lab iPhone. It’s a very impressive application, but it’s no HAL. Siri is essentially an integration of a very good, context-sensitive speech recognition program with a well-developed, dictionary-driven content-sensitive front end to various web-based search engines and “answer” services (including Wolfram Alpha!)

 

After a few years of this and that, I settled into 2 compilers. EBasic and Delphi7, the latter of course, Turbo Pascal grown up. The EBasic has a nice compliment ...

I’m curious about EBasic, but can’t find where to get a copy of it. Do you have a link?

 

I don't want to discuss LeSage and Fatio. I believe that their push gravity had flaws in it.

LeSage’s corpuscular gravity theory is one of my favorite subjects. I’ve written the beginnings of a few “toy” computer models of it, and would love to write a serious one, even though I’m almost certain that it can’t be made to agree with real-universe observation. I’m curious to know just what sort of weird, nonphysical astrophysics would come out of it, and suspect that few if anyone has much investigated this.

 

:QuestionM: Anyone interested in writing, or looking at what I write, by way of a very terse LeSage gravity simulator :QuestionM:

 

I’m fond of writing gravity simulations in MUMPS, largely because it’s very terse. This 1997 post from a few years ago has a pure Newtonian, arbitrary number of bodies gravity simulator that viewable as a single page of code (if you make the text rather small), more terse than most pseudocode. It’s proven handy for such things as demonstrating the shell theorem without a bit resorting to any calculus, and flirting with a Google Lunar X prize entry.

[7DSUSYstrings]

I’m curious about EBasic, but can’t find where to get a copy of it. Do you have a link?

 

Hi Craig,

 

http://www.codingmonkeys.com/index.php?action=forum

 

This will get you to Coding Monkeys. I just checked and could not find the download but started asking questions. IWBasic is its successor and Larry McGaughn owns it and CM now, so I may have spken prematurely. There is a plethora of other compilers there too, such as FreeBasic, Aurora and more. I will also check with Embarcadero to see if I can distribute Delphi 7 Personal Edition. It may turn out that I'm just a lucky guy to have these. Even if their answer is no, IWBasic is like $70 and it really is worth it. As for the site, I can only say enjoy and have fun. A great place to share and learn...

 

Hope that helps.

[7DSUSYstrings]

Well... phooey. No dice on the EBasic. Larry said it was pulled and I'll refrain from negative comments. What CAN be had is the IBasic learning edition, but it is an interpretted language, so no EXE's. :( I'm not into pirating, regardless of my opinion about this. Larry said I can distribute that edition.