Why haven't programming languages evolved in any meaningful way?

Why are they still using archaic ways to code, when using natural languages is clearly superior and easier? The very idea that people should adapt to computers and not the other way around is at least 60 years out of date.

Other urls found in this thread:

ohayo.computer/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Baby's first c++ hello world?

Look at functional programming. Turns out human grammar isn't actually good at conveying meaning. But to say they haven't or aren't evolving is retarded.

JavaScript today is 100x better than JavaScript 5 years ago.

How hard is it to write a simple ai that translates human language to code?

Very.

>Why are they still using archaic ways to code, when using natural languages is clearly superior and easier?
This exists but it has a very pricey subscription fee, there is an open source version but it often creates buggy unstable programs which due to license constraints have to be in the public domain . Its called becoming a manager and paying someone else to write your code for you.

serious question what are you even doing on this board?escaped from /x/?go back

I think it was a very reasonable question, since as this user says, it's already a thing in real life

Very

public English translate(x86retardation.asm)
{
for each x86_mneumonic in x86 retardation
do { be like so; }
return Englishy;
}

>when using natural languages is clearly superior and easier?
Natural languages are even shit when communicating ideas to other humans.

>when using natural languages is clearly superior and easier?
It's not. Look at mathematics. The language of mathematics developed long before machines came around. Why wouldn't natural language be used instead? Obviously because the language of mathematics is more efficient at conveying certain ideas. Similarly, programming languages are more efficient at conveying other ideas.

In the future, instructions that are targeted at the machine rather than the idea (such as memory allocation, typing etc) may be a thing of the past for most people, but pseudocode won't go away, because natural language is bad at conveying complex logic.

govnocode is the only way

Just wait for this meme
ohayo.computer/

Yeah. Linux is full of govnocode, and even MacOSX too.

Natural language is full of ambiguity. There exists constructed languages without ambiguity which could feasibly be used to program machines.

Not a good example, math notation is garbage tier for the same reasons natural language is garbage tier. Unfortunately, so are most music notations, so I can't give better examples.
Maybe chemical structure formulas?

>Its called becoming a manager and paying someone else to write your code for you.

Brainlets can only comprehend sequential code. Lisp (1958), ML (1973) and Haskell (1990) are superior alternatives to Algol based languages, but none of them really caught on.

It already does, it's called a compiler.

Programming languages are already a way of translating your requirements into less-efficient code than if you did it manually.

The requirements thing is the hard part. It's not good enough to tell the PC you want it to print fizzbuzz: you need to tell it the bounds, the order to do it in, where to print it to...

How would more advanced AI make it any easier to condense this information? AI, like quantum computing and machine learning, is just treated as a magic bullet that can solve anything by people who don't understand the bullet or the problem.

C O B O L
O
B
O
L

>clearly superior and easier
[citation needed]

Those languages have moved ahead a lot though. Just look at php7 vs php5 or 4, it's a fucking world of difference. Same goes for Java 8. C and C++ have had their standards updated recently. The only language in that image that would seem old to me is Python, considering it's still dealing with the whole 2 vs 3 fiasco.

Not bad

Lisp was invented in 1958 and is still the most expressionate programming language available with JIT, AOT and compiled blobs styles available, as well as full REPL programming capabilities and optional static compile-time typing available. Added to that, most consistent syntax paradigm.

More valid question is why isn't everyone using Lisp. Most are considering most ubiquitous programming language around, JavaScript, is essentially a Lisp dialect. Just a small step for the rest of the world to return to the fold now.

C was a mistake and will go the way of the COBOL.

natural language isn't precise enough

we need maths.

programming language is just maths babbi-ated for the CS crowd.

>math notation is garbage tier for the same reasons natural language is garbage tier
This is the first time I've ever heard someone with a math degree say that. How do you figure it's garbage?

Natural language have too many ambiguities. One sentence can mean many things.This is very dangerous in a computing environment.This is why human beings have body language. We wouldn't need it if verbal communication was clear enough.

I agree syntax can really be better. Don't know why we keep adding semicolons to the end of lines in so many languages, and if we restrict a language's features we can make it a little bit more human like. But a general language with just a natural syntax is very hard to do

It should be illegal for brainlets to spout this much nonsense on how the fundamentals of comouters work, without understanding a fucking clue of how they actually work.

But he's the idea guy

>programming language is just maths babbi-ated for the CS crowd.
lol, show me the mathtard who can understand the intricacies on working on complex code bases. all the mathbabbies can do is come up with one liner toy algorithms. mathbabbies are mental midgets and can't grasp any programming language in a way that would allow them to create more than shitty toy programs. mathfags eternally BTFO also permavirgins while us CS billionaires get all the pussy

Why are people still using mathematical syntax, when using natural languages is clearly superior and easier? The very idea that people should adapt to logic and not the other way around is at least 2000 years out of date.

Mathematicians are better at finding and expressing solutions to problems in the real world.
But I agree that this doesn't translate to coding ability. It's like a physicist trying to build a bridge.

implying that you can talk in a way that makes consistent sense.

I mean think about it. Unless you're 10X, which you definitely aren't, because if you were, you wouldn't be here bitching.

I'd expect a Physicist could build a bridge, they'd just have to derive everything from first principles and finding the capabilities of the materials available, and it would come in at a higher price than the engineer who would use known methods and book designs.

Hey, this is a pretty good analogy.