This is a meaningful classic in that it points out that “[I can’t understand the value of a tool I can’t master. On the other hand, it Implicitly assumes a single axis in the form of “Spectrum of abstraction”.
Beating the Averages Go Above the Ordinary Guys Author: Paul Graham (2001)
The Paradox of the “Hoge Language Let me illustrate my point here using the hypothetical programming language “Hoge”. Let’s assume that “Hoge” falls right in the middle of the abstraction spectrum. … When this Mr. Programmer looks down the spectrum of power, he is aware that he is doing so. A language with less power is obviously less powerful than “hoge.” It doesn’t have the features he is accustomed to. But when this programmer turns his eyes in the opposite direction, he does not realize that he is looking up. All he sees is a strange language. Maybe they are as powerful as “hoge,” but somehow they have all sorts of fluffy extras, he thinks. For him, “hoge” is enough. Because he thinks in “hoge. But think of a programmer using another more powerful language, and he is probably looking down on Hoge. What in the world can you do with “hoge”? It doesn’t even have a function y.
Natural language is clearly less powerful.
- Thinking in natural language is enough in natural language
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ほげ言語のパラドックス using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.