I don't think a more formalized language really gets around the problem. If that were true, we'd have already fallen back to the most consistent, yet simple languages available, such as assembler. But on top of these we build significantly more complex systems, bent by our own internal variations on logic. It's that layer that causes the problems. What seems like it might be successful is to pair our constructions with many languages that more closely match how people think. Now I know that sounds weird, but not if one accepts that a clunky, ugly language like COBOL was actually very successful. Lots of stuff was written, much of it still running. Its own excessive verbosity helps in making it fixable by a broader group of people.
Of course there is still a huge problem with that idea. Once written, if the author is no longer available, the work effectively becomes frozen. It can be built upon, but it is hard to truly expand. Thus we get to what we have now, a rather massive house of cards that becomes ever more perilous to build upon. If we want to break the cycle, we have to choose a new option. The size of the work is beyond any individual's capacity, combining different people's work is prone to clashes, the more individualized we make the languages the harder they are to modify, and the more normalized we make the hard they are to use. Paul.
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
