[p-e-w]

But why is that a problem? That's literally how we speak every single day.

In fact, given that this is how all the languages that humans are already familiar with work, it's hard to see why this wouldn't be the best approach for constructing a programming language.

[behnamoh]

Because:

- humans can ask back questions to clarify any ambiguity; computers don't have the capacity to understand ambiguity, let alone asking for clarification.

- computers are trusted to work w/o failure almost 100% of the time. humans err (to be human is to err, anyway), so we'd never put a human in charge of critical things we use computers for.

[readthenotes1]

I agree with your sarcastic reply that naturally grown languages are simply horrible for shared comprehension!

For instance, the poem, or should I say program using the example in the post has several different interpretations, and at least some of those teachers would say are flabbergastingly incorrect.

[oarabbus_]

It’s quite literally a problem, every day.