Proposal: Constructed languages

What sets programming languages apart from artificial ones? I feel like there are important connections here, but I can't put my finger on exactly what they might be. It is definitely arguable that questions about the readability of a programming language you're developing have as much of a place in this proposal as they do in StackOverflow.


Possibly… but probably not in way you are implying.

I think calling a conventional programming syntax a "language" in the context of this subject space is playing a bit fast and loose with the metaphor. If you want to include anything that uses a type of syntax to communicate ideas, architectural diagrams would be on topic; so would algebraic systems, graphing theory, art, music notation, music expression, and what type of flower you give on any occasion.

There may be a sliver of relevancy around constructed languages meant to aid in more natural human-computer interaction, but I don't think the folks truly studied in this space would consider the programming syntax used to compile executable code a language in the context of what they study.


The problem is that all programming languages are constructed (yes, even Common Lisp), so basically anything about programming would be on-topic in this case, since all have to use a (constructed) language.

More concretely, I think that we should focus on languages intended for communication between humans (or sentients, at any rate), not a language for specifying problems suitable for mechanical transformation into a sequence of primitive commands for execution by an automated system.

Like Robert said, some engelangs might be suitable to eventually develop a programming system around, if they are (or can be made) free from redundancy: Lojban comes to mind. Nevertheless, they are not the original or main purpose of the language.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .