Quantum, it is lame to even think PE is any way or can be compared to any programming language, to be specific Ruby. Forget about the intricacies of Nat. pLanguage(structures, mappings, polymorphs....). The early responders before me have made known their dogma... on this note.
More so, blue chip existence in code realms would hold no substance if PE could have its weight thrown against the same programming languages that's responsible for the web, AI e.t.c
PE is not better than Ruby Language
What has any of this got to do with Ruby?
I've watched this....
After doing this stuff for 45 years....this has been amusing, but misguided....
Without significant software (compiler/interpreter) overhead---nat language is just a burden.
Tragically---intent may be good, but experience and understanding of the real issue of directing electrons about
silicon traces seems to be shallow...
Programming languages are build to do this right, everytime, clearly and unambiguously---natural languages do not share that feature.
What are the online resources for learning Plain English?
What are the forums that are specifically for Plain English learners and Plain English programmers?
Who are the people who write in Plain English?
I asked to the Gerry Rzeppa, the Grand Negus of the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers:
Ah, so your only contribution here, "Quantum Robin", is to conduct a flamewar by proxy? Can I ask that you please do not continue to do that?
What could possibly "make collaboration easier" than speaking to a fellow human in the shared natural language used for ordinary conversation?
Based on the industry's experience of 70+ years: almost anything else, it turns out!
Natural language is inherently loaded with misunderstanding and ambiguity (it's a feature, most humour, irony, poetry and cryptic crossword clues couldn't exist without them!), that results in potentially catastrophic errors in a software engineering context.
This is why UML exists, even though we all wish it didn't. It's why automated test suites are an industry norm despite them being expensive to maintain. It's why good specification documents have tables and diagrams rather than stick to natural language, even though based on your argument, they are unnecessary.
You seem to try and duck this problem in PE by demanding the programmer defines the language semantics first in order to narrow the scope of ambiguity.
One problem with such an approach is that it would require a programmer to cognitively adjust when maintaining two programs written by two authors who have different meanings for the same word more so than they would in other languages.
Sure, we have this in Ruby when it comes to class names being the same in two programs with different functionality within them, but this difference is explicit and clear, but for PE to remain truly "natural", such differences must be minimised and implicit. Anything less, and it's no longer a "natural language" approach, after all.
"puts" might be an absurdly clunky shorthand for "Put on the screen" to your eyes, but at least it means exactly the same thing in every Ruby program I'm likely to ever have to pick up and maintain. Yet, 'Write "Hello" to the screen' in PE could mean different things if the author of the PE system I find myself in has changed the meaning of 'Write' or 'screen' in a way I had not anticipated.
You don't seem to have perceived or encountered such problems yet, and I am going to guess that this might be because the only people to have produced and maintained a significant amount of code in your language seem to be you and your son.
Take this into an enterprise code shop and see what they do with it, and you might learn a lot about human nature and problems with the language similar to the ones I have described.
What I fear is that PE will fail the "maintainable at team scale" test rather quickly, and worse given the tone of your reply you will find fault in the team rather than in your language.
Ironically for a language that seems to be borne out of a desire for empathy with the programmer, you may have designed an environment that is - completely unintentionally - passively hostile to them.
First, we don't "use a subset of English." Rather, we allow the programmer to precisely yet flexibly define whatever subset of English he deems suitable for his application and circumstances.
Your rebuttal reduces to "we don't use a subset of English, we make the programmer define a subset of English".
You haven't disproved my point, you've just made the whole idea even less attractive.
What you've described is what we call in Ruby "meta programming" and those of us who are a certain age spend a lot of time asking colleagues to avoid it.
Except for Plain English, of course, which has the absolute minimum "cognition overhead"
Based on your explanations and the source code that I have read, I do not believe this statement to be true beyond the point where a word is parsed at the surface level. Semantic and syntactic cognition seems to be harder in PE than any other programming language I know because as you've explained it, every word is defined differently in every program.
Short answer: Paul does not know Plain English, so he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Indeed, my short answer to this response could - if I was going to be as equally insulting and flippant - be something like: Gerry does not know professional software engineering, so he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Time to move on...
Is Plain English a good programming language to teach basic programming techniques?
If not, why the Plain English is not a good programming language to teach basic programming techniques?
On Feb 23, 2019 00:04, Allan Bowe <email@example.com> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 23:44, Quantum Robin <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
Em sex, 22 de fev de 2019 17:34, CRAIG JOHNSON <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>> escreveu:
On 2/21/2019 12:25 PM, Quantum Robin wrote:
Em qua, 20 de fev de 2019 13:33, Paul Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>> escreveu:
On 20 Feb 2019, at 14:35, Quantum Robin <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
If you can't set a good example,
be a glaring warning.
“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
General James Mattis, USMC