Found on proggit: Krug, a new experimental programming language, compiler written in D

[Chris]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 at 00:18:05 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:26:30PM -0700, Walter Bright via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
>> [...]
>
> People often complain about how redundant natural languages 
> are... not realizing that it actually provides, in addition to 
> being easier to read, some degree of built-in error-correction 
> and resilience in a lossy medium.  Think of reading a text that 
> has occasional typos or omitted words.  Most of the time, you 
> can still figure out what it's saying in spite of the "syntax 
> errors".  Or talking over the phone with lots of static noise.  
> You can still make out what the other person is saying, even if 
> some words are garbled.  Computer languages aren't quite at 
> that level of self-correctiveness and resilience yet, but I'd 
> like to think we're on the way there.
>
> Redundancy is not always a bad thing.
>
>
>> [...]
>
> Yes, something language designers often fail to account for.
>
> Well, many programmers also tend to write without the awareness 
> that 5 months later, someone (i.e., themselves :-D) will be 
> staring at that same piece of code and going "what the heck was 
> the author thinking when he wrote this trash?!".
>
>
>> [...]
>
> And Java. ;-)
>
>
> T

Yep. Good point. German is more redundant than English (case 
endings) and it's easier to re-construct garbled text. But 
natural languages tend to remove redundancy (e.g. case endings 
when the relation is clear) - up to a certain point! But 
redundancy is needed and good. Maybe natural languages show us 
how far you can go before you get in trouble.