All this futuristic grandiloquence: On Apr 3, 10:17 pm, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > The crux of my view is that programming languages exist in part > because computers in general are not smart enough to converse with > humans on their own level, so we have to talk to them like autistic 5 > year-olds. That was fine when we didn't have any other options, but > all the pieces exist now to let computers talk to us very close to our > own level, and represent information at the same way we do. Projects > like IBM's Watson, Siri, Wolfram Alpha and Cyc demonstrate pretty > clearly to me that we are capable of taking the next step, and the > resurgence of the technology sector along with the shortage of > qualified developers indicates to me that we need to move now.
needs to be juxtaposed with this antiquated view > I would argue that the computer is the tool, not the language. ... a view that could not be held by an educated person after the 1960s -- ie when it became amply clear to all that the essential and hard issues in CS are about software and not hardware -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list