0
$\begingroup$

I am trying to understand if a programming language can have totally or almost totally the abstraction level shared between generally all human languages so that it would allow a human to code a machine, or to communicate with a machine, similarly to how this person would communicate with a human and in general the machine will reply adequately (say, solving a problem for that person).

Possible pseudocode:

hello;

in plea, [open shop] at (time) (06:00) and [in such day]:
since (06:00) until (08:00) [sort stuff],
since (08:00) until (20:00) [accept customers];

in plea, if [no visitor or animal is in shop] than [turn off air condition)],
else, [turn on air condition];

in plea, if [a customer finished shopping and payed everything] than [tell generally every customer the message {{thank you for buying at our store}}];

also
in plea, if [no visitor or animal is in shop], than since (20:00) until (08:00) [close shop], else [ask the being to exit and if it doesn't exit after 30 seconds, call security].

thanks in advance

Notes:

  • hello and thanks in advance means process initiation and running while goodbye could be process termination

  • I have no idea what will such a programming language be might be used for → humanoid robots comes to me in mind though.

My question

Was there an attempt to create a programming language aimed for maximal abstraction?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How does this hypothetical language know how to open a shop, turn on an air conditioner, or what an opening day is? Are those all black boxes built into the language? $\endgroup$ – Aaron Rotenberg Dec 19 '19 at 15:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your example looks very much like a Domain Specific Language (DSL). As the name suggests they are custom tailored for a specific domain and specific users. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Dec 19 '19 at 15:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The purpose of a programming language is to unambiguously communicate logical rules. This is actually not possible with natural language. Counterexample: lawyers. If it were possible to unambiguously express rules in natural language, lawyers wouldn't exist, since there would be no need to interpret the law. And, by the way: laws are not actually written in natural language, they are written in legalese which is a domain-specific language (aka "jargon") for writing laws. $\endgroup$ – Jörg W Mittag Dec 22 '19 at 14:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ By the way, there are at least three rules in your program that I find unclear, even if I use my non-artificial intelligence to try and Interpret them. Also, I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to just lock customers in if they don't manage to leave the store by 20:00, but that is precisely what your program is doing. $\endgroup$ – Jörg W Mittag Dec 22 '19 at 14:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ People are literally killing each other right now about the meaning of certain parts of the Quran, so that is a perfect example of why natural language is not suitable for unambiguously specifying rules and processes. And both Islam and Judaism have entire professions whose purpose is interpreting the words of the Quran and the Torah. $\endgroup$ – Jörg W Mittag Dec 23 '19 at 9:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy