Comment by vletal
3 months ago
The idea that we can solve "language" by breaking down and understanding sentences is naive and funny with the benefit of hindsight, is it not?
An equivalently funny attitude seems to be the "natural language will replace programming languages". Let's see how that one will work out when the hype is over.
It's not naive, it's how languages work.
That grammar doesn't necessarily convey 100% of semantics is a problem of natural language. Or rather, of people being poor at communicating unambiguously.
Programming languages can also be ambiguous sometimes, but that ambiguity is resolved before execution by essentially following a priority list or throwing an error if no combination of rules fits.
They all fall into the pitfall that Martin Heidegger suggested avoiding, particularly in the introduction of his text What Is a Thing?.