lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

> Could imagine a Clippy programmer's assistant who would constantly nag
> you - "are you _sure_ that this variable is a string?"
> Mind you, Eclipse is actually pretty good at nagging and often
> suggests surprisingly intelligent solutions.

Yes, Eclipse as GUI has come to jump in for rescue for several
languages to circumvent their intrensic weaknesses. However I still
stick to coding in vim. The times I did java tough I loaded once in a
while the whole project into Eclipse to sort out unused import
statements, and sort the member functions alphabetically. I know
supposevly there are command line tools for that as well, or even in
vim, but I was too lazy to find out.

> There are attempts at completely explicit text in natural languages,
> and they're called legal contracts ;)  They are not fun to read.

I find this metaphors to natural lanuages interesting, but they are
just metaphors, in that are not necessary a proof, since in exactly
this regard X might not be like Y.  However, there are two interesting
additions to it, I'd like to share.

Yes in any everyday conversation there is tons of implicitly shared
context. This was highlighted In social sciences by for example
Garfinkel and his crisis experiments. Just try for once to not know
any implicit context your fellows suppose when asking this or that,
and always give a question back. Quickly they'll just regard you as
either crazy or an annoyance.

In regards to legal contracts. I can only share an european view,
since I was teached here. I konw the commonwealth legal system is
quite different, I don't know it, I only know some of the roman. At
least here legal contracts do actually target implicit intentions. A
contract is matching declarations of intent, and in case the court
will hold intent over written word. Most highlighted with "falsa
demonstratio non nocet", if both parties make a typing error but
actually ment the same thing, the contract is about the thing they
ment and not the one written.

But computers are just different, they arent a being that shares a
context with you. I see most issues in coding with suspiction where it
is made to either mind-read you. Or where a common decleration error
can easily mean something different - a small hamming distance. The
computer will take your by word and not by intention.