Hacker News

points by jmull 4 days ago | 0 comments

> I think the most important thing in any project you’re building...is how completely and accurately you articulate exactly what you want.

That's what code does.

I think he really wants to be having a debate about whether we ought to be using different coding languages, more based on natural languages, more declarative.

I think the law provides an interesting perspective. It has a technical, formalized language, built out of a natural language. Since laws and contracts can be very high-stakes, the technical/formalized aspects arose out of a need to express hard constraints using a language whose complexities seem to be built more for story-telling.

[–] comma_at 4 days ago

Laws are full of holes and contradictions. For example, megacorps evade tax. We want them to pay the tax. See, the _intent_ is for them to pay, but the _execution_ of the intent fails. If you take the current laws as the basis and want to improve upon them, how do you improve? What counts as improvement? "Megacorps must pay tax too" is a clear intent/goal. It captures the requirement. If you read the laws, can you deduce this requirement? Can you improve upon them without the requirement?

[–] lilbigdoot 4 days ago

Odd I thought that only proves them right, it's a best attempt with natural language by capital and the state, the two major forces of power in our society, and they still get burned.

[–] pydry 3 days ago

megacorps not paying taxes is kind of like a backdoor inserted into code.

the lawmakers know exactly what theyre doing but they'll throw their hands up in their and claim it was an accident or unavoidable if challenged. the people who perpetuate their narrative are an intrinsic part of how this process functions.