Re: Where does the drive to syntax come from?

On 2005-09-15 05:02:07 -0400, Björn Lindberg <bjorn@xxxxxxx> said:

Your original claim was that programming languages need to be similar to natural languages. That is a much more specific claim than saying that computer systems should be suited to human use, which seems to be what you are saying now.

"computer systems should be suited to human use" is a vague statement that encompases both ends of the discussion here, so no, it is not what I am saying.

The discussion here takes for granted that "computer systems should be suited to human use." The question is by moving in which direction:

A. Human-computer interfaces will progress if they become more like human communication - i.e., more like natural language.

B. Human-computer interfaces will progress if we ignore natural language and devise new modes of communication more suited to dealing with computers. These new modes of communication will become "suited to human use" because people are cognitively flexible and will learn and adapt to these new modes of communication.

I have been arguing for A. I think people are far less cognitively flexible than once thought (i.e., we are *not* blank slates). We have definite cognitive strengths and biases and we should play to them by making HCIs more like natural language.

Most recently I have argued that ContextL falls under the description of A rather than B - it adds natural-language-like features to CLOS. The feature it adds - contexts - makes computer systems more "suited to human use" because context is familiar to people from their well practiced and innate natural language communication skils. Contexts do not make computer systems more "suited to human use" by adding something unfamiliar, something more computer-like than natural-language-like, which people will have to learn and adjust to.

regards

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where does the drive to syntax come from?
    ... That is a much more specific claim than saying that computer systems should be suited to human use, which seems to be what you are saying now. ... These new modes of communication will become "suited to human use" because people are cognitively flexible and will learn and adapt to these new modes of communication. ... We have definite cognitive strengths and biases and we should play to them by making HCIs more like natural language. ... The feature it adds - contexts - makes computer systems more "suited to human use" because context is familiar to people from their well practiced and innate natural language communication skils. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Where does the drive to syntax come from?
    ... That is a much more specific claim than saying that computer systems should be suited to human use, which seems to be what you are saying now. ... The feature it adds - contexts - makes computer systems more "suited to human use" because context is familiar to people from their well practiced and innate natural language communication skils. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: English Computer Nerd sacrificed to please the Americans? Cowardly Govt in Westminster!
    ... That's akin to saying it' s alright to steal from my house or do ... damage if I leave it unlocked. ... divine right to break into other computer systems. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
    ... What I cannot grok, is the seemingly widely held belief that ... That's not what we're saying at all. ... how many different banks and other entities exist that use it in its CURRENT ... (A non-insignificant number of which are using computer systems that ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Excellent short Japanese video of 12" exhibition shell manufacture: Tsuchiura City
    ... I got an e-mail from someone else saying they couldn't open it either. ... I don't know why and I'm pretty clueless on computer systems. ... cut-away shot of all the shells split in half about 5:52 minutes in. ...
    (rec.pyrotechnics)