The foolishness of "natural language programming" (1978)
This 1978 essay argues against the concept of 'natural language programming,' asserting that programming requires formal symbolism and precision. The author contends that machines are inherently literal and that attempting to use human language for code leads to undetected errors.
Why it matters
It provides a foundational historical perspective on software engineering philosophy that remains relevant to modern debates about AI-assisted coding.
On the foolishness of "natural language programming" .
Since the early days of automatic computing we have had people that have felt it as a shortcoming that programming required the care and accuracy that is characteristic for the use of any formal symbolism. They blamed the mechanical slave for its strict obedience with which it carried out its given instructions, even if a moment's thought would have revealed that those instructions contained an obvious mistake. "But a moment is a long time, and thought is a painful process." (A.E.Housman). They eagerly hoped and waited for more sensible machinery that would refuse to embark on such nonsensical activities as a trivial clerical error evoked at the time.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in