Why human language is inferior to code

Holy shit !!!!

Donno...I think it's the other way around: why programming language is inferior to human language 😅

@ohmylacooon in code every statement has exactly one meaning, this couldn't happen

@Letmecode well to be precise, spoken languages

Human language is like perl.

@stop
😂

Exactly...@matanl

@ohmylacooon inferior to === worse than

I get your point, but the reason why I feel it's the other way around is that human language is capable of handling nuances and conveying meaning without having to be technically correct like programming language, making it far more superior with bigger capacity and complexity. @matanl

@fox8091 but the function name is an English word:
the problem is reductible to human language, which means it's actually harder in this aspect.
Or you can say that computer stuff are easier to describe than everyday stuff which makes more sense to me, i.e. try to write a computer program which defines "love"

Btw I just noticed that the cake is 120 degrees from being flipped over 😂

Fortunally a lot of recipes require to bake at 180°!!!

Programming languages have contextual nuances too. Just think of every time you've had to use 'this'.

@soulkicks still has a single meaning, if you don't know it doesn't change the fact that the computer knows

@matanl I get what you're saying. Code can have only one meaning at a time. but I would even argue that you can view our spoken words as variable names whose definition is a value that changes with context.

And we are the computers that interpret those values.

But you're still right. Even with context spoken language can be intentionally ambiguous. :)

@soulkicks Ah but if two compilers understand it differently code might also count as ambiguous. So we both agree now :)

Why not create perfect language for humans?

Sure let's start by defining "perfect" first @ziemek99

@ohmylacooon There are no ortographic rules (they're painful in Polish), one word - one meaning, etc.

Was joking around... 😉@ziemek99

@matanl and 2 processer architectures... =/

@brettmoan deep, context switching is deterministic if one knows the exact time it will take each processor to do a command. However that's never the case (only in replicated state machines from the 80s) so agree with that too