Ask HN: Why not make English computational, just like LaTeX, to ensure lock-in? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why not make English computational, just like LaTeX, to ensure lock-in?

1 pointamichail15 comments

Imagine a version of English extended so that anyone writing for precision—scientists, lawyers, engineers, or anyone documenting complex ideas—uses sentences that embed non-trivial computations. Understanding such text would not just require reading; it would require executing algorithms embedded in the language itself.

Just like LaTeX allows you to write documents precisely and reproducibly, this computational English would make automatic machine translation extremely difficult. Even a small snippet of computation could drastically change the meaning if it is misinterpreted. Over time, anyone who values precision might stick to English by default, creating a global lock-in for formal communication.

Casual conversation could still happen in any language, but for technical writing, legal documents, instructions, or rigorous journalism, computational English could become the universal standard. Its adoption would depend on its ability to guarantee exact meaning rather than ease of learning.

Would this lock-in ensure that English will be the universal language of the world forever, just like LaTeX for scientists?

>Imagine a version of English extended

You mean restrained. More specifically what you're proposing can formally be referred to as controlled natural language with executable semantics. Some attempts similar to this have been Attempto Controlled English and ClearTalk. (And Logos that someone showed here recently.)

>text would not just require reading; it would require executing algorithms embedded in the language itself

Arguably mathematics is just that.

>just like LaTeX for scientists

Future doesn't look very bright for LaTeX with Typst getting traction.

Like LaTeX, Typst is Turing-complete, which prevents flawless imports in other tools.

What you want is a document format that is not Turing complete, such as the TeXmacs document format.

We already have that stuff. It's generally called "professional jargon".

In software development, we even refined it greatly to meet our needs. That's what programming languages are.

Professional jargon isn't Turing-complete like LaTeX is.

LaTeX is a programming language. Any attempt to refine english to act like a programming language will just result in a new programming language.

LaTeX being a programming language makes it a bad idea for typesetting documents.

I don't see how that follows at all. But LaTeX seems to disprove the notion, since it is, in fact, very good for typesetting documents.

Why should it be acceptable to make flawless translation to other formats impossible for LaTeX if you wouldn't want to do the same for English?

I don't understand your question.

I mean it would be rude to use a natural language that cannot be translated accurately to other languages. So why isn't it rude to use LaTeX to write documents given that LaTeX is Turing complete and cannot be translated flawlessly to other document formats?

Why?

If it's a good idea to use a computational typesetting language — namely TeX/LaTeX, then maybe it is a good idea to make English computational also.

I mean why would you want English, a dreadful and ugly language, to be universal?

Disclosure: English is my native language.

Because it is good enough, widely used, and would make communication easier worldwide.

It isn't good enough. There's far too much ambiguity and imprecision inherent in the language. Just look at how often it is that native English speakers misunderstand each other.

To make English (or any human language) suitable for use as a programming language means you need to very tightly constrain the language -- which would make it less suitable for human communications.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com