True... but is it more efficient than writing code for nontrivally complex operations? Moreover, I'm pretty sure natural language cannot be completely free of ambiguity from context (double negatives, for example - parse it literally or idiomatically?) - so why bother for things that need to be instructed without ambiguity? Of course, we already have natural language processor for non critical applications (sirii)
The person you replied to stated, correctly, that a natural language cannot be used as a computer language. In regards to Watson, it's not a computer language, and it is considerably different from what you've described: http://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/faq.shtml
C++ for cookiehttp://www.elitetrader.com/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif D for another C language worth looking into (C done right) E for Eiffel - this is the language of the Future. Even MS implemented some ideas into their next generation .Net crap.
Interesting new languages. By the way, was curious over this link, http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif, which came out to be . So, am curious as to how you got this url for the icon? Thanks
I was trying to put a smile icon like you did by dragging icons into the body of this message - but that is what this forums' program produced instead.