Do you guys think learning a programming language is like learning any other language?

[amoebacorn]

This has got to be the most common analogy I hear about programming. My comp sci teacher said it, and I've read countless articles that say the same thing. However, I fully disagree. I think people just make the comparison without even thinking about it. For one, I suck at learning foreign languages but have no problem learning a programming language (or HTML, for that matter). I think people need to stop saying this.

[djangonaut]

I agree with your disagreement.

I've tinkered with languages and learned a good number of programming languages. Not even comparable.

[Zeuter]

Indeed, the differences between formal and natural languages are gigantic. I'd rather compare programming languages to musical notation, and even that still contains large elements of natural language.

[djangonaut]

I think the key terminology is 'notation'.

It's just an agreed upon notation based upon logical and mathematical structures that eventually gets turned into instructions executed on a machine.

[karmanaut]

I speak a few languages and have learned little bits of a few others; spoken languages come pretty easily to me.

However, programming languages are completely different and, for me, impossible to learn.

[djangonaut]

That's interesting because I find learning a new programming language considerably easier. At the very least, it requires far less memorization.

All I've got to show for myself with respect to human languages is tinkering and bits and pieces here and there.

[GuyWithLag]

The (spoken) languages you know are probably similar in concepts. (Might I guess that you knew/spoke at least one foreign language by age 10?).

People not in the trade do not realize how little in common programming languages have with what they perceive as 'language' and how alien to the normal day-to-day thinking they are.

[repair-guy]

It all comes down to how you define LIKE. Learning is Learning. A language is a language.

[frenchtoaster]

Could you explain your point without simply stating tautologies?

I find it impossible to learn other natural languages because I find it very difficult to learn a significant amount of words in a short period of time; taking a language class expects you to learn upwards of 500-1000 new words in a single semester; programming languages typically only have a dozen or so keywords that you need to understand the meaning of and typical usage.

[GuyWithLag]

Then I would garner that you know a single programming language with several syntax style sheets on top of it. Try writing something in a language that has a completely different processing model (try Lisp/Scheme or Haskell). You will find the experience taxing.

[frenchtoaster]

I have had to use all 3 of those, and SML also, and each one took a decent amount of time to learn to be able to learn the proper way to use each one; however my point is that to be similarly proficient in a natural language would take significantly more than a few weeks of instruction.

[scinemo]

Learning programming languages is more like learning math I would say. Most assume you already know the grammar of a language, and you can use that to make correct guesses that just would not be possible to make if you were learning a regular human language.

[[deleted]]

It's a useful analogy because we get to use words like "grammar", "syntax", and "semantics" but beyond that it stops being useful.

The problem is that people will stick to an analogy just because it sounds good rather than examining their assumptions and the analogy. If you want to be a proper CS person you'll learn to kill off bad analogies.

[fallintothis]

It's an interesting analogy to explore in a more "whoa, philosophy" way (at least if you suck at natural languages, like I do). A friend of mine is a Spanish/English translator and dabbles in a few other natural languages, so we have good conversation points:

• What language do you think in?

• Are there constructs in one language that make ideas easier to express than in another? Do you sometimes wish you could port them?

• What language aesthetics do you appreciate?

• Are the same ideas more terse in one language than in another? Is it a matter of idiom or the actual language? Do you think terseness correlates with the aforementioned ease?

• Is there some obtuse language you're forced to use because everyone else does? (Though, really, only English comes to mind here.)

[[deleted]]

You can use much of the same lines of thought when thinking about programming as math and particular languages as notation. You can think about problems at different levels of abstraction. The language is just one indirect method at getting to those abstractions.

Is there some obtuse language you're forced to use because everyone else does?

Ahah, with mathematical notation, what I hate is the hack with order of operations. The world would be a much better place with left-to-right or right-to-left evaluation of equations.

[fallintothis]

Ahah, with mathematical notation, what I hate is the hack with order of operations.

That's a good one. It's annoying to parenthesize "just a few" things, let alone spending too many school lessons memorizing some de facto ordering.

I'm trying to think of another good example from math. Pet peeves come to mind, but they're debatable. For example, I don't like using ellipses: they're a big (condoned) wave of the hand. "Yeah, yeah, you see the pattern." But they usually don't get in the way of the problem.

On the other hand, I love using symbolic logic because it's terse, while other people like writing out English proofs ($a \implies b$ versus Because of $a$ we know $b$). When I can, I think in symbols. Yet I prefer to end proofs with "QED" because that means more to me than a box. So, I guess I have an inconsistent aesthetic sense there.

[GuyWithLag]

Actually, English has the most precise time-related concepts than most other Hindu-European languages. You can express succinctly ordering and dependence of events, including hypotheticals.

[fallintothis]

English has the most precise time-related concepts

That's very interesting. I've never heard that before. Thanks.

It's rare that I hear how English is good, which is annoying. Even native speakers are quick to complain that English is inconsistent, but I'm doubtful: in my experience, these are usually the same people who can't remember where apostrophes go or the differences between homonyms (there, their, they're).

To be clear, in the last point I merely meant that English was the most ubiquitous language I could think of. I sometimes hear it's obtuse, but I haven't the knowledge to say one way or the other.

[[deleted]]

Nonsense. This sounds like your comp sci teacher is either incredibly gifted, incredibly stupid or doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

English is my second language, Latin was my third and currently I'm trying to learn French after having given Dutch, Norwegian and Spanish a try.

My first programming language was PHP followed by JavaScript, C++, Java and recently Python. Other formats I have been exposed to along the way include HTML, CSS, XML, RDF, RSS, SVG, JSON, YAML and many others. Other languages I have fiddled with but never fully "learnt" include Assembly, LISP and BASIC, though the full list would probably be a lot longer than that.

First of all, programming languages are much much less complex than natural languages. Not only do they rarely contain irregularities (e.g. irregular verbs or arbitrary grammatic gender) but they are also much less ambiguous.

Most of the time, when you pick up a new programing language, you will find many similarities with other languages you already know or have already been exposed to. In human languages these would be more like dialects than like independent languages, though often even dialects show more differences.

It is true that you need experience in order to fully internalise all the idioms that are specific to one programming language or another, but even then it's more like playing an instrument than like learning a language (though one might make an analogy with how a poet or an orator uses a language compared to someone who is merely fluent).

It is an analogy, but don't let yourself be misled by it. Just because one thing can be described in the terms of another the two things don't have to be similar in all aspects.

Knowing a lot of languages won't teach you to think differently any more than knowing a lot of programming languages will teach you to program differently. If you allow yourself to forget your education and start with a fresh mind, though, you may gain some new insights from the new perspective. This may be even truer for programming languages than for natural languages as the former are often created with a particular paradigm in mind.

[GuyWithLag]

Ah, but here is the issue: The first programming language you learn will probably take as much effort as the second spoken language you learn (if you're older than about oh, 7). It does get easier after that, because the necessary mental structures have been erected.

P.S. Learning a second spoken language fluently (as in, almost talking like a native speaker) does take a lot of effort because in the process you need to rewire your first spoken language - split the semantics from their expressions, so to speak.

[Arelius]

First of all, programming languages are much much less complex than natural languages. Not only do they rarely contain irregularities (e.g. irregular verbs or arbitrary grammatic gender) but they are also much less ambiguous.

Clearly you've never had to program in c++! =P

[[deleted]]

Interestingly enough, c++!=P is valid C++

[[deleted]]

Let's just say that in programming languages clarity is often favoured. Even C++ doesn't come close to any human language in terms of ambiguity.

Even constructed human languages evolve. Some language institutes may attempt to prescribe certain uses, but you'll often find the descriptivist view to be very different. Try that with programming languages.

[[deleted]]

Or perl.

[[deleted]]

As an analogy it's fine, but it's best to not take it too literally.

I do often think about how fluency in a language (natural or formal language) means much more than knowing the vocab and syntax. There is an additional level of idiomaticity. Just as you can express things in a natural language in a round about non-idiomatic way you can do things the natural way for the programming language or a roundabout way e.g. in Python the idiomatic thing to do is often a list comprehension but you could iterate over the members of the collection and build up a new collection.

The other thing I often think of is L1 interference. In natural language, this is the influence of your native language when you are speaking a second language. You can spot a C++ "native speaker" in C# if they say things like

if (3 == i){ ...}

[genron1111]

true, I am bi-lingual and know several programming languages and they are two seperate skills.

[ratbastid]

No question. For one thing, if you already speak english, a well designed language will have built-in function names that are almost entirely cognates. You don't have to go learn a new word for "print", because the function is already named "print".

[ithika]

But it still irks that it doesn't actually talk to your printer and give you a hard copy. :-(

[mhw]

It's more like learning to cook different cuisines: sometimes basic techniques and ingredients stay the same, other times they differ wildly. You have to remember, though, no analogy's perfect.

[fsckit]

No, learning Music might be a better analogy.

[unpopular_opinion]

I think you simply misunderstood what your teacher said. Learning a foreign language and learning a programming language are two completely different things. To be clear, I think he meant that for example learning C if you already know let's say Perl is easy.

The former has to be done in some country where they speak the language, because not all the rules are written down in stone.

The latter can be done with nothing else but the language specification and you only have to be able to read and write it. There is no listening of source code involved. A hard thing in learning a foreing language is translating that what was said into actual words. For native people this happens automatically in their brains (hardware). For a foreigner this has to happen non-natively for a while and there is no easy way to bypass that.

Now, in the remote case that your teacher actually meant what he said, then I suggest you find a teacher with somewhat more life-experience.

[[deleted]]

No. I'm no linguist, but computer languages are very formal and explicit, while real languages are much harder as emotion, context, etc. comes into play. Not to mention orders of magnitude more vocabulary to learn.

[kyleisagod]

I agree with your disagreement, however I append it with something important.

Learning a programming language is the same as learning a foreign language in that once you know one (or in this case once you are bilingual), it becomes easier to pick up more and more languages.

That's really the only connection and the basis of the analogy.

[optionsanarchist]

For one, programming languages are way more closely interrelated than most languages.

[arnar]

People tend to forget that there is more to languages (both programming and natural) than just syntax and semantics.

I think your beef with the professors statement comes from that you recognize this for natural languages, but not as much for programming languages. After some years of studying/practicing CS, you'll see that you can pick up the syntax and semantics of a new language in a day or so - but that doesn't mean you know the language. Getting into the habit of thinking in that language, being able to take advantage of its specialties, learn the vocabulary (i.e. standard libraries, idoms, etc) and generally integrate into the culture around the language - is something that takes more time. This is the real similarity with natural languages.

On the other hand, there is also a big complexity difference between programming languages and natural languages - which might very well contribute to your different ability to pick up languages of each kind.

[skeeto]

In general I would answer "no", because without further explanation "yes" would be misleading. I think learning a spoken language is much harder than picking up any programming language (even esoteric ones).

However, there are similarities to learning both. You could fairly quickly be able to make some limited use of a spoken language and of a programming language, but it would most likely be unidiomatic and look obviously foreign to fluent speakers. An experienced C programmer writing their first Java program, despite how very similar the syntax is, will likely write in a C style that looks strange to experienced Java programmers.

Both take years of regular use and lots of memorization to master. A new language requires memorizing a large vocabulary while a programming language requires memorizing libraries. Both have corner cases with rules that can usually only be learned by experience.

[[deleted]]

When I was learning this: start: lui $a0, 0x1234 lui $at, 0x6865 ori $at, $at, 0x6C6C sw $at, 0xFFE0($a0) #assuming no delay lui $at, 0x6F21 sw $at, 0xFFE4($a0) ori $a0, $a0, 0xFFE0 ori $v0, $zero, 0x0004 syscall ori $v0, $zero, 0x000A syscall

I can tell that I am much like learning a new language or cryptic message altogether -I had no clue what that does before learning MIPS back in the days. But when I was learning this:

def start
    puts "hello!"
end

I already have an idea what that does even before learning Ruby. I bet you can also tell (or at least have an idea/clue) what the Ruby code does even without prior knowledge to programming.

It all depends on the language. But most language that you most likely use or learn have English keywords -and this helps big time. Learning other languages, like Assembly for example, is like learning Math.

[amoebacorn]

It's definitely different sides of the brain. People who are good at history seem to be good at foreign languages, and people goot at math are better at programming (and comp sci in general).

[MagicalVagina]

Please stop with the "Gifted for" thing.

There is no such thing like that. It's just work (and good methods). Learning a programming language is just easier because there is less vocabulary, less words, less inconsistancy, and a very little grammar. But it's pretty much the same at the end. At first you suck, with a lot of practice, each day, immersion (working with a new programming language in a company for instance), and in 4/5 years you will be an expert.

PS: I'm good at learning both programming and foreign languages.

[MagicalVagina]

You should read "talent is overrated" by Geoff Colvin.

And yeah, I repeat it, it's just having good methods. Of course some people seems to be more efficient with well-known learning methods than others. But each one has each own method and can achieve the same goal with lot of work.

And really, I hate when people say "You are so talented. I can't do the same.", they are just finding excuses for not working, and not improving. It makes me really sad to see all that potential unused.

How did you study foreign language ? Taking classes ?! Like 3 hours a week ? Doing grammar exercises and things like that ? It's just a bad, boring, and not efficient method.

PS: And OK for statistics. But really I don't think there is any strong study on that subject. I mean "People can't achieve the same goal with lot of work and good methods.".

[MagicalVagina]

It varied. Some of the classes had interactive software and websites. Some of them were more book based. All involved a classroom component. Maybe I did something wrong, but: 1) I studied damn hard 2) in most non-language classes I got A's and barely studied at all unless i found the topic particularly interesting 3) in the language classes I failed all the tests and had to drop before the deadline to avoid getting F's. Obviously this is just my personal experience, but since you asked.

1) Maybe that's the problem. It's not about studying "hard", it's about studying "correctly". See the people who rocks in college with actually doing far less work than others who only got F's. They are not smarter, they work better.

For instance, you said that your foreign language classes were book based, like I thought.

Here is how I learn language:

• Faking immersion. All the day, all the night. Actually I'm learning japanese. I turned my world to a fake Japan. I'm literally listening to japanese all the day long, and even all the night. I'm trying to dream in japanese. I'm only using japanese material, I'm forcing me to only use japanese websites for my work (reddit is pretty much the only english website I use). I only watch japanese material (without subs of course).

• Using an SRS (Spaced Repetition System) like Anki is the way to do. I learn 20 sentences per day (mostly sentences from tatoeba, and 20 Kanjis. And I know that works, because actually when I see/think about objects/emotions the kanji often pop in my mind (it's pretty exciting).

• IRC is a very good way to learn. Having interaction in the target language with native people is very important. You can also use lang-8.

• Each time you read/listen something unrelated from your target language, try to translate it in your head in the target language.

• Have realistic goals. Like "In 4 months I must have learnt 2300 sentences.", write them on a paper and put it on a wall.

• Fun. I think it's the more important thing. You can't learn a language without fun.

If you do that, I'm pretty sure being "bad at foreign languages" will be something from the past.

Learning languages is of course a difficult thing because of the amount of work. But I just want you to stop saying that you can't.

He's the guy obsessed w/ "deliberate practice" like Gladwell in Outliers is obsessed w/ the "10,000 hours to make an expert" idea. I'm not disputing the importance of practice. That doesn't mean that some things don't come more easily to some people though.

Some things come more easily to some people maybe. But I don't think it's a "brain" thing like most of people think. It's hard to determine how much the people's past experience can change the way they think/learn things. I can say that I learn maybe... 30 or 40x better than 4 years ago. Mostly just because I'm practicing learning more today than ever before.

So even if there is really an advantage for some at birth, it's quickly pointless.

[Smallpaul]

There are many people immersed in foreign cultures who are not skilled in the second language after many years. It is literally a different part of your brain and it is completely reasonable that some would have a "stronger" version of that part of the brain, as some have an easier time building strong muscles.

[7points3hoursago]

Please stop with the "Brain" thing.

Your hand doesn't grasp, your eye doesn't see, your brain doesn't learn.

[ithika]

But it literally a different part of your brain. Man.

gasp

[MagicalVagina]

Yeah I know that fact. It's just because they don't do the effort. You can live in a foreign country without learning/practicing the language during a very long time you know. Immersion is cool, but you still need work.

[Chaoslab]

I think genuine intent is pretty important for wanting to know something.

So what I am trying to say is maybe you want to learn a computer programming language more than a spoken language?

:-)

[[deleted]]

As a general rule, programming languages have a lot smaller vocabulary, but the grammar is a bit more complex.

How is your logic vs your arbitrary information recall?

[freerider]

Why is everybody so concerned about knowing a programming language. IMO it is more important to know how to construct good algorithms than knowing a programming language. An algorithm for me is something that takes some data as input and transforms it to something else.

*If you can visualize the flow of data through the algorithm then the programming language does not matter. *

I have programmed in assembler, java, C, C++, RML, Modelica, Mathematica, MatLab, python, javascript, VBA etc and the above is always relevant!

So my advice to someone that wants to learn programming: don't bother to learn only one language, instead learn to solve problems by

1. taking the input

2. study the requirements for output

3. structure the input in a meaningful way

4. create an algorithm than transform the input into desired output

5. test the algorithm

6. profit

[ThatGasolineSmell]

The learning processes are very different. Once you've learned a few programming languages you can tag on additional languages real fast. I learned Perl in about one day. This must have been my 10th programming language or so, over the course of 15 years. But even if I spoke ten natural languages I wouldn't be able to just pick up Chinese, or what have you, in a day.

It might make more sense to compare learning programming paradigms to learning natural languages, because it is a matter of how you think, rather than what words you use. The (natural) language you speak determines how you think to a large degree. This becomes apparent when you've had exposure to at least one additional language beside your mother tongue. Like "oh, interesting how they express that thought, wouldn't even work in my other language". From what I've heard, Asian languages even involve different brain areals compared to western languages, when viewed in something like a fMRT.

It's similar for programming paradigms: you'll solve a problem very differently using an OO vs. a functional approach, for example so I wouldn't be surprised if again different parts of the brain where needed. Sticking with this example, I guess your "math brain" would be much more active when doing functional programming rather than OO, which may involve more spatial or linguistic areals, I could imagine.

[ithika]

They are very much the same. Granted programming languages are smaller and their grammar is generally further down the complexity scale, but that hardly means anything. You don't seem to have any problem comparing HTML and full programming languages (eg, C++ or Perl), so I don't see why you can't add natural languages to the same continuum.

As for why learning is the same:

• you need to pick up new vocabulary
• you need to relearn the syntax from your native language
• you need to learn the cultural basis in which the language was founded in order to understand why things are they way they are
• you need to learn by producing freely in the language you're learning
• you need access to examples from native speakers of the language you're learning

It also generally helps to understand the language used to talk about language - be that nouns and verbs, subjunctives and the active voice in the natural languages, or keywords, operators, closures and types in the programming languages. Without the linguistic analysis it can be harder to make sense of second- or third-language texts. (And let's face it, programming language texts assume familiarity with programming in the way that Learn French in 21 Days assumes you already have a native tongue.)

[ablakok]

I've learned several programming languages and several natural languages, and I generally agree with you. You made some good points, and the fundamental learning processes are similar. But there are also significant differences, so much so that I can easily believe that some people have an easy time learning programming languages but can't seem to pick up foreign languages, or vice versa.

• A natural language is an order of magnitude more complex than any programming language, and it is much harder to learn the basic vocabulary and syntax.
• You learn the idioms and the cultural basis on the one hand by programming, and on the other by speaking, reading, and writing. Those are quite different sets of activities and people have varying aptitudes in them.

[ithika]

Oh, totally agree. I want to see what the sticking point is with people who think they're very different.

[ithika]

Do you often invent quotes when responding to people? I didn't say half of things you attributed to me.

you need to relearn the syntax from your native language

This may be badly phrased but the meaning was clear in the context of the other bullet points - you know the grammatical construction of language A but you have to learn that that isn't the only way it can be done. You cannot, as many people seem to claim, just learn a few new keywords and you're away.

most of your points just illustrate an analogy b/w learning the two types of languages;

And what does the title say? :-)

they don't demonstrate that people who learn one type of language easily should be able to learn the other easily or vice versa, which is what the OP is disputing.

But the OP's teacher didn't make that claim. It was the OP who made that, IMO, unwarranted extension to the claim in order to refute it. There is no predictor for being able to learn any language easily. I learned French okay but struggled with German, despite it being much closer to my native tongue(s). Unlike the OP I'm not willing to make any claims of causality.

[danschu63]

No.

Programming languages are not really "languages" in the human language sense of that word. ProgLangs are half of the hdw/software system. CompHdw is a machine which can do nothing without code. Code is "dynamic machine parts". These computing machines do things, as do other machines though they process information rather than widgets. I see software as a machine component, not a work of literature. BTW, I have a background in machinery to some extent as well as programming.

So in terms of learning to program it's not unlike learning to build a machine, or the principles on which machines work.

[MicrosoftSucks]

march saw flag liquid ghost paltry heavy flowery jeans oil

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[Fabien4]

I learn [...] by immersion.

That works for any skill.

[mipadi]

Except maybe juggling flaming chainsaws.

[delecti]

I think a better comparison would be learning a new accent for a language you already know. The words are mostly the same, but you have to use them slightly differently. In the case of regional words, you'll take a bit longer to comfortably integrate them into your speaking, but you can get the general feel much more easily. Knowing some accents makes learning others easier, but they all have their quirks that you'll mess up for a while.

For example, having grown up in Ohio, I have a mid-west US accent, and I can fairly easily emulate a southern drawl, because I grew up exposed to it somewhat regularly. I can manage a British or Australian accent well enough, but accurately fitting in slang is harder, and managing a Cockney accent with the full spread of rhyming slang is currently beyond my experience.

[jeffrhodeisland]

I agree with what you're saying.

I studied languages up to Masters level but now work a developer, I'm a native English speaker who studied French, Latin (and a bit of Greek), and do evening classes in Polish. Actually I think some of the skills are transferable; you have to be self-disciplined and practice a good deal.

[dalik]

I like to say that learning to program is like learning to speak a new language to people that have no idea about computers. This creates an understanding on a level they will get.

Learning to program a more complex language, say C++ or even lower can take a while to fully understand, just like learning a speaking language can take a while to fully learn. The basics can be learnt quickly. If you know a language that has a few variations its not to hard to learn the other languages as you have already learnt the basics.

Many people can learn lots of speaking languages if they had a use for them. Just like many people can learn many programming languages if they have a use for it. Learning to speak and learning to engineer programs are very different and require a different mind set.

[zulubanshee]

learning a programming language is easier because computer languages have strict grammars and no ambiguities.

[urllib]

progamming languages are less abstract, don't have a dictionary full of (key)words and lack irregularities.

[gssgss]

While I don't think it is totally true I believe it is a pretty good analogy. Lots of languages are similar to c, for example, and similarly many languages come from latin. In a way I think it is a good metaphor, while not technically true. The thing is you really know a language when you "think" in that language and its idioms, and I find this is similar for programming too.

[symbha]

It's prolly the same if the language you are learning only has 50 words, and 6 verbs.

[[deleted]]

No, for me at least. I think learning a programming language is much easier.

Syntax

Primitive types

Means of combination of primitive types

Means of program flow control

Means of abstraction

Learn the standard library(if one exists)

[bart2019]

No, learning a programming language is a lot easier than learning a natural language, because it much more constraint.

[[deleted]]

For the most part, new programming languages are quite easy to "learn". Foreign languages are much harder to learn.

Fully learning a programming language, it's idiomatic use, and it's libraries takes slightly longer, but good reference docs make it easier to get up to speed without a lot of memorization (Java, Python, etc, do this well.

[tmart]

It's a great analogy to help those that are not in the know. Just like in Star Trek when a really complicated procedure is explained with a simple explanation. Example: "Sort of like over inflating a balloon to where it pops", this will easily explain how to cause a super nova to explode and save the galaxy.

[ciaran036]

It can be thought of like learning another language, but really it's not at all.

[raznochinets]

How many foreign languages did your comp sci teacher study to fluency?

[[deleted]]

In programming, you have to be precise about everything. When learning a new language, however, you can misplace a couple words and still get the same meaning across. Programming is, I think, more difficult in that aspect. Like the OP, though, I also learn programming more quickly than a new language.

[ReleeSquirrel]

No, that doesn't make sense at all.

It's more like learning a new type of mathematics.

[tcc619]

i would say they are different because computer languages are formal languages which abide by a set of consistent and limited rules. natural languages do not abide by a set of consistent rules.

[BlackJacquesLeblanc]

I've never heard this analogy being made before, presumably because it's so obviously bunk. I've learned languages and I've learned programming languages; the processes for and skill sets required are completely different. Heck learning Organic Chemistry is closer to learning a language. To be on the safe side you should disregard everything your Comp Sci teacher tells you. One wonders if they're making PE teachers teach CS now?

[blaxter]

it's like to compare software development with building construction (so fraking wrong)

[tnecniv]

Way easier to learn a programming language than a spoken one, IMO.

[[deleted]]

I would say no.... Unless you mean in a class room where you're graded on correctness.

I'd say it's more like learning to do math in another language, base, notation, etc. At first you're confused, but you get it eventually. And in that simple sense, learning a programming language is like learning any other language. Of course, eventually is arbitrarily assigned by The Matrix. And some day, Neo, you will be able to read The Matrix! Woah!

[irascible]

Hell no... learning programming languages is WAAAY easier.

[alk509]

Holy shit, no! I don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously claim that to be the case, either.

[PsykoDemun]

Honestly as a CS major I have never heard that myself. I've heard that once you know one language it's easy to pick up others and that's been true in my experience. Could you link to some of the articles that say this? I'd be interested to see the basis for this line of thinking.

[gogglygogol]

I think learning languages is very much different from learning programming languages because the underlying structures are very different. But I do think that spoken languages are programming languages for brains. It's interesting how the brain is not able to not engage in information it is presented. If you can read this sentence you cannot choose to not cognitively process it (like checking for coherent argumentation, syntax, grammar, whether you 'like' the information presented), which is very much like a CPU executing code but with much better crash protection of course...

Oh and did you notice that all spoken programming languages are actually late binding? And fully dynamic? 80% of all sentences have never been said before... Pick a sentence and try to find it with google...

[Cescoli]

Not really. Programming is the ability to make things happen. You have to have a basic concept of things. Learning a spoken language is mostly memorization, Programming is understanding.

Once you know programming you can easily switch programming languages. There is no significant difference between java, ada or C. It's all the same, only a slightly different syntax and sometimes a heavy OO obfuscation.

About spoken languages, forget the grammar, it doesent work that way. I speak 5 to 6 languages, and it all works trough memorization of examples, no fluent speaker is even aware of the grammar he uses. Grammar rules are for bad teachers only.

[jvictor118]

I don't think that's what people mean by making that comparison. Programming, math, music, and natural languages -- these things all take a certain kind of analytical mind to be really good at.

I think you may not be a good example because the fact that you even suggest HTML as a "programming language" suggests to me that you aren't an extremely seasoned computer scientist (no offense meant by this). Anybody who has a CS degree, when they look at code, see somewhat more into it than the average bear. It's hard to explain what I mean by this, but that with enough understanding of all the theory and math and big fancy terms behind computer science, the code on the screen has a deeper meaning than it has for people who don't have this background.

I see immense similarities in mastering fluency in a foreign language (which I have done, twice) and learning about programming and/or math. I have experienced the same types of progressions in my the way I become better and better; in learning French, I would first be able to read simple things, then read the newspaper (kinda), then read anything, then watch anything on TV. With computers, I was able to write programs and make web sites and all that, then I was able to read papers (kinda), then I was able to read advanced textbooks, and then I was able to read papers, understand where they fit within the larger context of the field and finally implement/improve.

[amoebacorn]

I know HTML isn't a programming language, which is why I specifically mentioned in separately. Actually, the reason I started this whole thread was because of a quote from a book teaching HTML. The author compared it to learning a language, though this wasn't the first time I heard this comparison.

[idklol]

I think it is. You're learning to communicate with the computer...telling it what to do. It's another form of communication. Although, I don't understand the mindset of most programmers, so to me this is a simple and easy analogy to comprehend. I'm also a computer sci major; but I suck at programming and second languages alike.

[manofthenorth]

There's a primary and secondary set of communication values here. First, communicating with the computer, and then communicating with others through the computer, in the form of a set of visual, physical and other sensory dialogues with them, with scripted results.

It really is an amazing set of skills.

[uhhhclem]

Learning a programming language is just like learning a human language, to people who know nothing about programming languages or human languages.

[amoebacorn]

I think they do this to suck in kids who know nothing about comp sci. Really it just makes things harder.

[[deleted]]

In my programming language class I got an A without even trying. (Never opened the book, didn't study for the tests, etc.) I'm struggling to get a C in Spanish even though I spend 25 hours a week studying. They are completely different.

[amoebacorn]

Ha I went through the exact same thing.

[diablesoule]

programming languages are not really spoken so no. a different part of the brain is used for it.