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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1696ae,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid1696ae,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: steidl@centuryinter.net Subject: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal? Date: 1996/07/22 Message-ID: <4suk39$9h2@news.ld.centuryinter.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 169405862 references: <4sf9e7$kl7@news.jump.net> <4sm83e$jkg@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> <4spj1f$prf@news.pacifier.com> <4spkdm$faa@solutions.solon.com> organization: Century Internet reply-to: steidl@centuryinter.net newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.dos.programmer,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In , dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >Peter says > [Lots of stuff talking about the limitations of C header files snipped.] > >Languages are more than just a set of syntax and semantic rules, they also >come with a "typical style" of writing code. This style is partly a matter >of tradition, but is strongly influenced by the design of the syntax and >semantics. > [Some style stuff snipped.] > >One clue of the importance of these typical style issues is the difficulty >of writing effective automatic translation programs from one language to >another. It is not too hard to write a translator that translates one >computer language to another, but to write one that takes a program written >in the typical style of language X and produces an idiomatic program written >in the typical style of langauge Y is extremely difficult. > >In fact I would venture to guess that at this stage translation of natural >languages from one to another is more successful than translation of >computer programming languages. That's because the entire strucure of >a program can be altered as a result of the shift of styles. > >Note that this applies to a human too. Someone who knows French and >English really well can take a novel written in one language, and produce >an acceptable idiomatic translation by translating sentence by sentence. It sounds like you have some experience with translating computer prorams, but no real experience translating novels. Human language translation presents many of the same problems as computer program translation does - i.e. different sentences may talk about the same thing or be in the same style, or even talk about each other, and translating them from one language to another without consistency will result in a lackluster outcome. Both programs and novels involve a certain style and content. However, I think that human novels are generally harder to translate than computer programs because a computer program is self-contained (if you include the language and libraries), whereas a novel draws on an entire culture. Translating the novel effectively often means having intimate knowledge of two cultures and being able to make mappings (which are sometimes very subtle) from one to the other. Some really difficult problems (difficult even for very intelligent humans) can arise when trying to perform this task. To see examples of such, you should read "Godel, Escher, Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter. BTW, everyone who likes to program should read this book, IMHO. Of course, if you want to make computer program translation as hard as translating novels, require the translater to translate the comments from the context of the first languages' community to that of the second would be a start. -Jeff steidl@centuryinter.net - http://www.dont.i.wish.com/ All opinions are my own, and are subject to change without notice.