From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f7a7163813ae8672 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,f7a7163813ae8672 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,f7a7163813ae8672 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,f7a7163813ae8672 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-14 12:23:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3C1A5FC7.E675D24@worldnet.att.net> From: James Rogers X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.perl.misc Subject: Re: Best language for low IQ programmers? References: <1004990076967295@aol.com> <3be6fcf8$1@news.sentex.net> <9vdb7r$5jf$01$1@news.t-online.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:23:15 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.28.210.193 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1008361395 63.28.210.193 (Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:23:15 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:23:15 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.c++:111556 comp.lang.java.programmer:117653 comp.lang.ada:17927 comp.lang.perl.misc:82681 Date: 2001-12-14T20:23:15+00:00 List-Id: Christian Menke wrote: > > > > I say, wait till someone writes a cross platform compiler > > > for English. Then you'll have a chance. > > > > I'm not so sure. Did you notice his use of English? > > Hardly a sentence without a spelling error! > > There's unlikely ever to be a compiler capable > > of coping with that. > > If a human brain can cope with it, it must be possible to write a compiler > capable of doing it too. But the point is that English is too imprecise for computers, just as it is for humans. How could we disagree about the meaning of various English statements if the language were adequately precise? For a simple example, how many interpretations are there for the English version of the Bible? I do not mean how many interpretations into English. I mean how many people, upon reading the SAME translation, will understand it to mean exactly the same thing?