[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Typos in the manual
From: |
Mark Harig |
Subject: |
Re: Typos in the manual |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:21:18 -0500 |
>
> >> > Something that's long been a mystery to me is why it is that
> >> > computer programmers, who spend their days learning and
> >> > following the rules and idioms of various programming
> >> > languages, do not want to learn and follow the rules and
> >> > idioms of natural languages.
> >>
> >> Because computer languages are constrained by the specifications
and
> >> tools that interpret them, whereas natural languages evolve and
> >> diverge through human usage?
>
> When I read your para above before, it (strangely) didn't occur to
me
> that it could be intended to include reference to me and the Guile
> manual. Hence my general reply above, about the practical
constraints
> on computer language evolution being tighter than those on human
> languages.
>
It wasn't intended to reference you or the Guile reference manual. It
was a response to Ralf Wildenhues's recounting that he had submitted
patches that corrected usage to many projects and had them rejected.
> Just to be clear then, I didn't mean to imply that. In fact I
believe
> that I and the Guile manual do "follow the rules and idioms of
natural
> languages." Note in particular that this thread about "i.e.," is
> nothing to do with the looseness of human language constraints
(i.e.,
> the kind of thing that allows many people today to say "you was"
rather
> than "you were"). It's to do with a convention that has forked in
two
> standard forms of English.
>
Understood.
> > 4) Programmers develop strong opinions about what is ugly or clean
> > in computer languages, despite the fact that this is not
described in
> > the language specifications. Yet, when something is pointed out
> > as clean or ugly in natural language, that developed sense is
dismissed.
>
> When you say "dismissed", are you including this thread, and/or
Guile
> manual discussions in general?
>
No, it was a general observation of the irony.
--
- Re: Typos in the manual, (continued)
- Re: Typos in the manual, Mark Harig, 2011/02/15
- Re: Typos in the manual, Ralf Wildenhues, 2011/02/15
- Re: Typos in the manual, Mark Harig, 2011/02/15
- Re: Typos in the manual, Neil Jerram, 2011/02/15
- Re: Typos in the manual, Mark Harig, 2011/02/15
- Re: Typos in the manual, Francis Southern, 2011/02/16
- Re: Typos in the manual, Neil Jerram, 2011/02/16
- Re: Typos in the manual, Mark Harig, 2011/02/15
- Re: Typos in the manual, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2011/02/16
- Re: Typos in the manual, Neil Jerram, 2011/02/16
- Re: Typos in the manual,
Mark Harig <=
- Re: Typos in the manual, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/02/16
- Re: Typos in the manual, Neil Jerram, 2011/02/16
- Re: Typos in the manual, Mark Harig, 2011/02/16
- Re: Typos in the manual, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/17
- Re: Typos in the manual, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/02/21
Re: Typos in the manual, Bruno Haible, 2011/02/19