Pincho Paxton Posted April 18, 2012 Report Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.