The link to java2k was startling and funny. It made me wonder if there is any use to creating a programming language made completely out of puns...for machines or dancers, and thus guaranteeing the "effects of misreading".
On Mar 21, 2014, at 8:04 PM, Rob Myers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 21/03/14 02:03 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>> Something that stuck with me in the dialogue so far which seems
> important (and I don't recall who introduced it), is the idea of a
> compiler or an interpreter that simply refuses to compile syntactically
> malformed code. This really foregrounds the implicit difference between
> "code" (as in computer programming languages) and "language" (as in
> "natural" human languages uttered/written in the world). Theoretically,
> programming code can have all the robust, affective wiggle room of human
> languages -- in other words, it can have the ability to be "misread."
> The meaning of Perl code varies by context:
> Multimethod dispatch algorithms deal with resolving ambiguity and intent
> (if Yaxu is reading this I'm sure he can relate this to strong static
> type hierachies in functional languages):
> And if anyone remembers Prolog, that resolves logical constraints and in
> the right circumstances can give (many) more than one answer to a question:
> Nondeterministic programming languages can simulate the chance and
> effect drift functions of misreadings:
> But these all feel like weak functional replacements for misreading.
> Which raises the question of whether misreading is necessary to get the
> effects of misreading: can rewriting or intentional ambiguity provide
> the same effects, or is there something either functionally or morally
> unique to the idea of misreading?
> - Rob.