[dcw303]

I'm confused by the website. The intro has a clear example that reads like natural language processing, but the FAQ goes out of the way to stress that the language does not do NLP. At that stage it gets a bit ranty, vague and dense, and I kind of lost interest. Perhaps I'm not smart enough to get what they're trying to do. "Developing a domain-appropriate lexicon and phraseology". Is this a DSL? Regardless, I don't see this setting the world on fire.

It's interesting that they've called this paradigm Articulate Programming, because articulation of the domain is where the problem both starts and ends.

How many times have you worked in a company with staff who start off exasperated with how complex IT makes solving a business problem, only to be surprised at just how many details are in their day to day processes once you've spent time covering off all the edge cases and writing tests around exceptions.

Code becomes complicated because the domain it models is complicated. Hence the reason why a good engineer's most important skill is in gaining an understanding of the real world problem domain, and expressing that as code. And also why I'm not worried of AI taking my job any time soon.

[bbeonx]

Same. I guess my takeaway is that I'm happy people are looking into this because in ten (or twenty (or a hundred)) years this research will hopefully have paid off. I, however, want nothing to do with it.

Also, they don't do natural language processing but allow you to write method names like "the square-root of _x^2 + _x + _" where the underscores are arguments.

Thus their "efficient" compiler that they parallelize the parser to find an unambiguous parse.

I don't know. This seems like it would be super fun to write and to play with, and that there are probably some really cool new things being discovered that, when matured and properly integrated, may be workable into a usable programming language.