The Foolishness of "Natural Language Programming"

Take generic arcoxia normal, regular breaths and use the machine until the medicine clomid runs out.Wash mouth after use, especially when using corticosteroid medications. augmentin pill Insulin resistance occurs when the cells in the body have generic cream side effects and alcohol difficulty responding to insulin and cannot easily move glucose from prednisolone online sale the blood. Children with hearing loss require prescription hearing aids viagra online to suit their growth and development, as well as monitoring synthroid prescription by an audiologist. Avoid injecting Fasenra right around your belly atenolol button or in skin that's scaly, hard, tender, bruised, scarred buy zithromax without prescription or injured. Before using pramoxine for eczema, it is important purchase cheapest advair price tablet to take certain precautions to ensure safe and effective treatment. purchase remeron online If people are outdoors in a thunderstorm and they cannot kenalog overnight shipping get to any safe shelter, the CDC suggests they can buy serevent without prescription crouch down low in a ball-like position. A person may (metacam) free sample also want to discuss changes to treatment if they notice their.

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.Houseman). They eagerly hoped and waited for more sensible machinery that would refuse the embark on such nonsensical activities as a trivial clerical error evoked at the time.

Machine code, with its absence of almost any form of redundancy, was soon identified as a needlessly risky interface between man and machine. Partly in response to this recognition so-called "high-level programming languages" were developed, and, as time went by, we learned to a certain extent how to enhance the protection against silly mistakes. It was a significant improvement that now many a silly mistake did result in an error message instead of in an erroneous answer. (And even this improvement wasn’t universally appreciated: some people found error messages they couldn’t ignore more annoying than wrong results, and, when judging the relative merits of programming languages, some still seem to equate "the ease of programming" with the ease of making undetected mistakes.) The (abstract) machine corresponding to a programming language remained, however, a faithful slave, i.e. the nonsensible automaton perfectly capable of carrying out nonsensical instructions. Programming remained the use of a formal symbolism and, as such, continued to require the care and accuracy required before.

In order to make machines significantly easier to use, it has been proposed (to try) to design machines that we could instruct in our native tongues. this would, admittedly, make the machines much more complicated, but, it was argued, by letting the machine carry a larger share of the burden, life would become easier for us. It sounds sensible provided you blame the obligation to use a formal symbolism as the source of your difficulties. But is the argument valid? I doubt.

.:cs.utexas.edu->

email

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Posted: November 19th, 2010
at 5:02pm by Koookiecrumbles


Categories: myninjaplease,development,education,language

Comments: No comments



 

Leave a Reply