[MUD-Dev] Languages (slightly offtopic, was Text Parsing)

[Mark Gritter]

Cynbe ru Taren writes:
> 
> There's a common myth that natural language would make a great
> programming language if only we could write compilers for it.
> 
> This is flat-out WRONG.
> 
> Remember that Algol was invented well before electronic computers,
> simply because natural language sucks as a medium for giving precise
> directions, even between humans.
> 

Umm... I don't believe this is correct.  Algol was invented in the
late 1950's (first formalized in 1958), and there were certainly electronic 
computers before then.  EDVAC was built in 1952.

> Mathematicians similarly developed math notation because natural
> language is completely inadequate for precise communication.
> 

But a MUD doesn't need "precise communication"!  Neither does anybody
but mathematicians and computer programmers.  Lawyers, the military, and
business managers all find English sufficient for their needs.  (Certainly
each with their own jargon, style, and conventions, but all three groups
use recognizable "natural language".)

In fact, I'd argue that mathematical notation isn't any more "precise"
than natural language.  Most proofs are done using the writer's
native tongue rather than a formal system--- specialized notation is
just a shorthand.  It's simpler, easier, and more efficient to write 
"x + y \equiv 2 (mod N)" than to say "The sum of the values of the 
variables 'x' and 'y' is in the same congruence class as 2, when 
all numbers that differ by a multiple of 'N' are in the same congruence
class."  But it's no less precise--- mathematical notation is a fairly
recent invention in the history of mathematics.

I agree wholeheartedly that users want consistency and "intuitiveness"--- but 
I don't believe that they really want to learn a different set of conventions 
from what they already know.  Also, in the absence of comprehensive NLP
(not to mention Natural Language _Understanding_) I agree that a 
simpler, more constrained language probably gives a better experience---
not to mention requiring fewer keystrokes!  :)

There is also the issue of whether you _must_ be understood the "first
time" or not.  For computer programs, this is obviously true--- and for
most MUDs, this is the case as well, since their design doesn't keep
input state from one command to the next.  An NLP parser, however, should
have the ability to ask questions and attempt to resolve ambiguities
through dialogue.  I think the lack of this feedback is probably more 
crippling than any inefficiency or lack of clarity in English itself.

Mark Gritter
mgritter at cs.stanford.edu


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev