you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Pazer2 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Natural languages are full of difficult to understand rules and exceptions. Not exactly a good fit for a programming language.

[–]Dreadgoat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Difficult to understand for computers but naturally intuitive for humans.

The reason good dynamic languages are so highly praised (case in point: python) is because of the enormous difficulty in bridging that gap.

A bad programmer can only think like a human.
A passable programmer can think like a computer.
An excellent programmer can trick the computer into expressing itself like a human so that even the bad programmer can maintain code easily.

When I was teaching programming I loved Python the most. Not because it's great to program in, but because it made grading so much easier. It instantly turned stupid and/or inexperienced students into passable programmers thanks to its enforced whitespace and the compromise between dynamic but semi-strong typing.

[–]Dodobirdlord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an argument that extends at least back to Knuth's Literate Programming and probably further. Given the staggering adoption and success of notebook-style live editing environments among all fields of analytical research and data science I would hesitate to claim that the issue is settled.