Since the early days of computing, some have viewed programming's formality as a flaw, blaming machines for their strict obedience to instructions. They hoped for more 'sensible' machinery that would reject nonsensical activities. High-level languages emerged as an improvement, catching many silly mistakes with error messages instead of erroneous results. However, the abstract machine remained a faithful slave, perfectly capable of carrying out nonsensical instructions. Programming continued to require formal symbolism and the care it demands.
The proposal to design machines instructionable in native tongues would greatly increase the machine's burden, but proponents argued it would simplify human life. This assumes the obligation to use formal symbolism is the source of difficulty. The author doubts this argument, noting that interface choice isn't merely a division of labor—communication work across interfaces must be added.
History shows that formal symbolisms enabled progress. Greek mathematics stagnated in verbal form, and the modern world emerged when Western Europe freed itself from verbal precision through carefully designed formalisms by Vieta, Descartes, Leibniz, and Boole. Formal texts require only simple rules for legitimate manipulation, effectively ruling out nonsense that native tongues almost inevitably produce.
Source: Hacker News · Summarized by HeadlinesBriefing