Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To the brain, reading computer code is not the same as reading language

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 232 posts

Re: To the brain, reading computer code is not the same as reading language

#61

Post by GolDDranks »

ipnon wrote: post #47

And yet natural language aptitude highly predicts programming ability[0] [0] https://cacm.acm.org/careers/243179-forget-math-language-ski...

On the other hand, "natural language aptitude" as measured by Modern (modern = ca. 1960s) Language Aptitude Test, which they used in that study, doesn't actually predict success in language acquisition. The test scores correlate with ability to perform well at _early_ phase of language curricula – but this is exactly the phase when the learners are still using the "general processing mechanisms" to process language, and not the mechanisms specialized for language that get engaged when they gain fluency years later.

Sadly, this is underappreciated in the general psychology and linguistics community. Some researchers in Second Language Acquisition research community are more concerned about this kind of mis-interpretation and confusion of different meanings of "language skills/aptitude".

Re: To the brain, reading computer code is not the same as reading language

#62

Post by vncecartersknee »

pdonis wrote: post #60
User23 wrote: post #28

As someone who is fluently bilingual and speaks a third language and is also proficient or better in a half dozen programming languages along with having written code in many more, this is completely obvious to me. Learning a programming language is much closer to learning a complex board game than it is a natural language.

> this is completely obvious to me This was my reaction as well: what, they needed to do a study to figure this out?

science isn't when you just decide that things are obvious and leave it at that lol. They probably have data and an experimental methodology and stuff now that future authors can build on to try to answer more complex questions.

Re: To the brain, reading computer code is not the same as reading language

#63

Post by syrrim »

ipnon wrote: post #47

And yet natural language aptitude highly predicts programming ability[0] [0] https://cacm.acm.org/careers/243179-forget-math-language-ski...

>And yet natural language aptitude highly predicts programming ability

Its all correlated with g.

>[0]

They contrast "language learning ability", ie intrinsic intelligence, with "math knowledge", ie amount of schooling. For reference, you can take (a version of) the math knowledge test used here: https://www.idrlabs.com/numeracy/test.php

If the article wanted to give a more honest interpretation of the paper, they would have focused on the leading predictor of programming ability, "fluid reasoning and working-memory capacity". One supposes this to be quite useful in math and engineering.

Re: To the brain, reading computer code is not the same as reading language

#64

Post by vncecartersknee »

User23 wrote: post #28

As someone who is fluently bilingual and speaks a third language and is also proficient or better in a half dozen programming languages along with having written code in many more, this is completely obvious to me. Learning a programming language is much closer to learning a complex board game than it is a natural language.

I feel exactly the same, I've been learning a second language and it's nothing like learning programming, in fact arguably the opposite, I've found that obsessing over grammar is almost detrimental to making progress with a new language.

The confident students who aren't concerned with getting all the specifics of grammar exactly perfect are the ones that are making the most progress toward being conversational, they're able to express themselves and actually have something resembling a conversation, despite using the wrong prepositions here and there or conjugating verbs wrong sometimes. The more "academically" minded students who obsess over getting the grammar correct like a math equation are still struggling to form even basic sentences outside of solving homework problems on a piece of paper. I've noticed that I've been making much better progress now that I've been focusing on just trying to express myself even if I'm making mistakes.

Which is obviously the complete opposite of using a programming language.

Re: To the brain, reading computer code is not the same as reading language

#65

Post by NL807 »

User23 wrote: post #28

As someone who is fluently bilingual and speaks a third language and is also proficient or better in a half dozen programming languages along with having written code in many more, this is completely obvious to me. Learning a programming language is much closer to learning a complex board game than it is a natural language.

Similar situation as you. I view programming more like seeing patterns, structures and constructs for solving problems, which is completely divorced from natural language grammar.

The "language" part in programming is really just a vernacular term for describing differences in syntax, and has no parallels with human spoken languages.

Re: To the brain, reading computer code is not the same as reading language

#66

Post by vincent-manis »

tomcam wrote: post #59

Using the term “computer language” was an unforced error. Made perfect sense intuitively yet one could argue it’s a disservice since, as others have pointed out, it lights up completely different sections of the brain.

I have never liked the term “programming language”. Niklaus Wirth said somewhere that a better term is “programming notation”, and that has always stayed with me.

That said, I like to understand a program (especially my own) by explaining it in English. There, I'm using generative, rather than recognition, processing. There might be some fruitful research in asking people to explain how programs work, rather than what they do, under fMRI.

Re: To the brain, reading computer code is not the same as reading language

#67

Post by userbinator »

tug0fwar wrote: post #53
User23 wrote: post #28

As someone who is fluently bilingual and speaks a third language and is also proficient or better in a half dozen programming languages along with having written code in many more, this is completely obvious to me. Learning a programming language is much closer to learning a complex board game than it is a natural language.

I agree, this is probably because we never 'speak' (although write) in programming languages trying to convey something. This goes same for 'hearing' (although we read and understand, hopefully). We always use human languages for those purposes, well, except for those times we speak in pseudo-code.

this is probably because we never 'speak' (although write) in programming languages trying to convey something

Have you told anyone to grep, cat, mount, fsck, or sudo?

I'd say the more experience one has with a programming language, the more reading and writing it feels like a natural language.

Re: To the brain, reading computer code is not the same as reading language

#69

Post by Cerium »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #39
User23 wrote: post #28

As someone who is fluently bilingual and speaks a third language and is also proficient or better in a half dozen programming languages along with having written code in many more, this is completely obvious to me. Learning a programming language is much closer to learning a complex board game than it is a natural language.

I like that example of "learning a board game." When I read text I "hear" conversations, and when I read code I "see" structures. Definitely different parts of the brain being activated.

That is how I have thought about code as well. I sort of grasp the "shape" of it, and the analogy to a board game is a good one. I think it supports why it is hard to talk about code, if we thought of it as speak-able units we could paraphrase it.

Re: To the brain, reading computer code is not the same as reading language

#70

Post by sethhochberg »

analog31 wrote: post #51
Bob_LaBLahh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. My hypothesis is that this is largely because code is non-linear whereas most written music is usually read in a linear fashion. Agree/disagree?

That seems plausible. Music is written to be read in that way. Writing and sight-reading are a sort of symbiosis. There are no subroutines or abstractions. And a good reader recognizes a lot of patterns by familiarity. There's stuff that goes straight from my eyes to my fingers while I'm thinking about something else. But if you write some completely random note pattern or rhythm (or both at the same time), I might b…

The pattern recognition (and muscle memory that comes with it) is a huge difference between sight-reading music and programming, IMO.

I'm sure if we tried hard enough we could come up with a pretty good analogy between data structures / algorithms and scales / arpeggios / etc... but I've never felt quite the same when recognizing a familiarish algorithm in code as I would when sight-reading some music and having my fingers perform the right kind of movements out of almost unconscious muscle memory.

Post reply on HN