Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT

[Nathan Rice]

>> > A carpenter uses his tools -- screwdriver, saw, planer --to do
>> > carpentry
>> > A programmer uses his tools to to programming -- one of which is
>> > called 'programming language'
>>
>> > Doing programming without programming languages is like using toenails
>> > to tighten screws
>>
>> I would argue that the computer is the tool, not the language.
>
> "Computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about
> telescopes" -- E W Dijkstra
>
> Here are some other attempted corrections of the misnomer "computer
> science":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science#Name_of_the_field

I view "computer science" as applied mathematics, when it deserves
that moniker.  When it doesn't, it is merely engineering.

Ironically, telescopes are a tool that astronomers use to view the stars.


On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:25 PM, rusi <rustompmody at gmail.com> wrote:
> All this futuristic grandiloquence:
>
> On Apr 3, 10:17 pm, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r... at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> The crux of my view is that programming languages exist in part
>> because computers in general are not smart enough to converse with
>> humans on their own level, so we have to talk to them like autistic 5
>> year-olds.  That was fine when we didn't have any other options, but
>> all the pieces exist now to let computers talk to us very close to our
>> own level, and represent information at the same way we do.  Projects
>> like IBM's Watson, Siri, Wolfram Alpha and Cyc demonstrate pretty
>> clearly to me that we are capable of taking the next step, and the
>> resurgence of the technology sector along with the shortage of
>> qualified developers indicates to me that we need to move now.
>
> needs to be juxtaposed with this antiquated view
>
>> I would argue that the computer is the tool, not the language.
>
>
> ... a view that could not be held by an educated person after the
> 1960s -- ie when it became amply clear to all that the essential and
> hard issues in CS are about software and not hardware

I'll go ahead and forgive the club handed fallacies, so we can have a
nice discussion of your primary point.  What a civil troll I am :)

Lets start with some analogies.  In cooking, chefs use recipes to
produce a meal; the recipe is not a tool.  In architecture, a builder
uses a blueprint to produce a building; the blueprint is not a tool.
In manufacturing, expensive machines use plans to produce physical
goods; the plans are not the tool.

You could say the compiler is a tool, or a development environment is
a tool.  The programming language is a mechanism for communication.