Hi,

In message "Re: Ruby aesthetics"
    on 02/09/07, paul / prescod.net <paul / prescod.net> writes:

|> That's the point.  I guess you don't have any problem of equivalence
|> with your language (in this case, English).
|
|I am never happy with natural language metaphors for computer languages.
|Natural languages are HARD to learn (ask Larry Wall about Japanese!).
|Computer languages should strive to be much easier. Natural languages have
|many ambiguities in them. Computer languages must drive the ambiguities
|out. The rules defining natural languages are so complicated that
|linguists can't agree on them.

I do agree with the aspect of natural language you stated.  But still,
my point about brain bits is unrelated with the aspect.  I was talking
about alternatives in languages, not ambiguities.

							matz.