[wtetzner]

> The reason I'm not in favor of natural language programming has nothing to do with its probabilistic nature and everything to do with its lack of precision

Yeah, even if they're made to be 100% deterministic, you've now got a programming language whose rules are deterministic, but hard to understand. You've effectively pinned the meaning of the natural language in some way, but not a way that anyone can effectively learn, and one that doesn't necessarily match their understanding of the actual natural language.

[godelski]

And it's weird that this even needs to be argued given that our long explanations are needed to even convey fairly simple concepts. Not to mention that it still relies upon correct interpretation.

The result of natural language programming is either an extremely limited programming language or an extremely verbose one (again, look at law). Presumably it'll result in both.

It's a nice idea but ignores the reason we invented symbolic languages in the first place. They were invented after natural language. It's not like code is some vestigial language raiment. We're trying to replace it because it's hard and annoying. But I'm certain that's mainly due to the level of abstraction we're trying to work with more than due to the language we're using