Minimism is a new idea, made by the creator of NaturalScript: Human Language for Machines ( /r/naturalscript )...

Other urls found in this thread:

holy fuck this is autistic and depressing even by leddit standards


how is it different from Lojban: Machine Language for Humans?

ants have brutal circle pits

there are many subreddits like that

Imagine being so BTFO by fucking leddit.

Because a machine language for humans actually makes sense. There are occasions where autistic literalism is useful even for humans (for example legalese, or various ad-hoc jargons like the one used in RFC proposals with clearly defined MUST, SHOULD, CAN, etc.)

On the other hand, a natural language for computers is a perennial idea that about every generation thinks they can get right, but fail miserably when they hit the wall of fundamental distinction in semantics. Everyday human language depends on the listener being an intelligent agent that can discern double meaning, innuendo, jokes, whatever. Any such attempts always result in an abomination of a rigid, formal core wrapped up in a pointlessly verbose package that does absolutely jack shit for easing the burden of learning how to use the language (like Cobol or SQL). Why have mathematicians given up on sticking solely to natural languages even though they don't have to deal with computers? Really makes you think.

All his comment on the thread are like that, Its kind of sad

brutal indeed. kropotkin ETERNALLY btfo.

They're so stupid that they can't even get ledditors to go along with them.

What is this even? Any machine language that exists (Assembly language??) is created by humans for humans.

No serious guy in programming ever bothered with such a strange request.

Did we? All we do is speak and write in natural language, though, be it filled with professional terms and notations.

lmao, what, of three generations? Humans have only just barely started working with computers you fucking ahistorical tard.

By that I meant constructed languages with formally defined semantics.

Any programming language has to be translated by machines into instructions that are to be followed by a machine. This is an important aspect that imposes quite a bit of limitations on the semantics.

Okay, I admit I overstepped my expertise in that sentence. But I do still think (as an engineer and coder) that symbolic notation for mathematics is generally more useful than the old way of spelling out every single operator verbatim. Isn't it?

Yeah, computers will be able to understand nuanced natural language anytime now. Either you seriously misunderstand how computers work, or you're just trying to be contrarian for the sake of pissing people off.

Mathematician here. You've actually stumbled on an interesting historical issue in mathematics. The key with mathematics is that the use of words that would be ambiguous in everyday speech (for example, inclusive or exclusive "or", any, eventually) are rigorously defined and have a specific meaning agreed upon by mathematicians.

There are still huge ambiguities though. For example, lambda means something different in different disciplines, things can get weird.

I've re-read my two posts and I've noticed that I somehow managed to avoid using the word "syntax" in both. So my point is: if you're faced with "inhuman" semantics, there's no point in modifying the syntax to create a semblance of a human language.

Yes, this was actually my point. Humans are intelligent, and they can resolve ambiguities. Humans managed to do mathematics while writing out equations as sentences just fine (I've been scolded on many occasions by my advisor for not writing equations in a way that can be spelled out, so I think I finally get it). But computers can not, they can only mechanically translate symbols and syntax trees.

Right, typically the symbols don't equate to syntax trees like a computer would parse. You're using the symbols as shorthand for words or phrases, just to abbreviate.

for some reference:

Actually the thing is that Chomsky's hierarchy applies very well to constructed languages. At least the distinction between context-sensitive, context-free, and regular grammar is important, and maps clearly to formal computation models (state machines, Turing machines). (modulo regular expressions being violated by pragmatic concerns and usually forcing "regular expression" parsers to implement at least context-free grammars, if not context-sensitive).

cryptocurrency is pure communism tbh


Well, what would be the benefit of that? It's not hard at all to construct one, people simply won't use it.

Not at all. The lowest levels of programming languages are machine instructions. The whole point of higher level programming languages is preserving space and time for the programmer and compatibility issues: since programs written in machine instructions would have to be rewritten for different hardware, not to mention other issues.

Neural networks have seriously been around for several years, and they can already do amazing things.

Obviously a formal constructed language won't replace a natural language, that's completely missing the point. It could be a replacement for monkey-patching English, aas in documents with a lengthy prefaces consisting of "MUST here means that … SHOULD here means that … CAN here means that …." etc.

The above user here: just so it doesn't seem like I'm a disillusioned faggot insulting everything, I'm quite excited about development of programming language semantics, actually. If you are too, have a look at:

> RedPRL ( ) this is not a practical language (rather a theorem prover), but I'm shilling it anyway as the author is a commie.

why not coq

now that I think of it, it could be first test for a new programming language: does it still look interesting if you replace the syntax with lisp-ish s-expression? if not, back to the fucking drawing board.

I never bothered to learn it, isn't it mostly for automated theorem proving? The most contact with it that I had was using some Haskell libraries that were supposedly proven to satisfy certain laws by rewriting parts in Coq. Maybe I should learn it some day. also remember kids, if you find a good pun on Calculus of Constructions and the last name of its inventor, then go for it, who cares what does it sound like in an obscure language like English

I don't see why it's not possible. Technical advances obviously can mitigate or complicate a political issue, so it follows they might also solve one completely or create one ex nihilo. Industrial capitalism providing several cases of the latter.

It's made by the guys behind Ocaml so it's guaranteed to be super cool!