[Kim_Bruning]

Let's actually look at this as if I'm serious for a second? Tell me this framing really can't work.

None-exhaustively:

Python has if, for, while, def, class and first class lists, dicts , functions ;

Forth has this stack machine concept, RPN, compilation-in-the-REPL when defining new functions.

Lisp has this code is data is code concept, and CAR, CDR, first class lists (obviously ), first class functions (in some of them) ... etc.

Machine code can (theoretically) be directly expressed in logic gates.

How about a quick look at what English supports:

Conditionals, iteration, abstraction, composition, delegation, exception handling, scope, naming, modularity; intent, priority, graduated precision, analogy, context-dependence; And.. the concept of semantic triples is built in as a syntactic primitive (subject-predicate-object), so you can even do a bunch of GOFAI right off the bat.

It's weird thinking of english as a programming language. But it kind of works like one if you want to, and computers can process it now?

[oblio]

I'm not saying English (or any other natural language) is not usable. It is, since it's a more complex language than programming language. All natural languages are supersets of current programming languages.

I'm talking about the opposite problem: these supersets are ambiguous, contradictory, vague. At the end of the day the thing that is programmed needs to be clear, unambiguous and ideally concise, too (performance in its million incarnations).

So yeah, I guess you can fix the ambiguous aspect with verbosity. Just write more words until you define everything you need to define more directly when using a formal language.

I would be extremely shocked if programming wouldn't require knowing a very specific, albeit huge, domain jargon.

[Kim_Bruning]

Question isn't per-se "is English a great language to write the next sorting algorithm in?" . Probably not. Rust is quicker , and cheaper to execute besides. But there's entire classes of problem that English might be more useful for.

English assumes the target is an agent with memory/state in a given context. Ambiguity, verbosity, noise is strongly reduced by means of modelling the other agent's state, then only transmitting the required state diff. The receiver decodes by comparing the diff against the other side's predicted state and updating. [1] This kind of protocol would obviously be NUTS to build from scratch if you went about it as an engineer I'd think. But we have the hardware and software preinstalled in humans , and now my 3090 can run an (imperfect, but viable) decoder

Is it useful? Yeah, I think it actually is. English is able to encode things that are ambiguous, contradictory, vague... and get useful results. Not always; maybe not even often. As you say, skill required, but the option is there. Formal languages just crash.

It's interesting is what I'd call it.

[1] see also: Clark & Brennan's grounding theory in linguistics; Predictive coding in neuroscience; Delta encoding in compression; and Theory of mind in cognitive science. They all dance around the same shape, so this is roughly accurate I think.