Certainly there is a need for care outside of computers too, like in law, but legal documents are a prime example of programs. That's programming, written using a programming language, not natural language. It is decidedly not the same language you would use for casual conversation and generally requires technical expertise to understand.
> complex applications can still be fully specified in plain English
In plain English, of course, but not in natural English. When using language naturally one will leave out details, relying on other inputs, such as shared assumptions, to fill in the gaps. Programming makes those explicit.
Programming only needs to make things as explicit as necessary based on the developer's desires and the system's assumptions. Where more detail is necessary, the programmer can add more code. For example, there's no need to tell a browser explicit rules for how users should be able to interact with an input field, since that's the browser's default behavior; you only need to specify different behavior when you want it to differ from the default.
Likewise for English: one can use natural English to add as many details as necessary, depending on who you're talking to, e.g. "Make an outline around the input field, and color the outline #ff0000." You can then add, if necessary, "Make the corners of the outline rounded with a 5 pixel radius."
In this respect, complex applications can be fully specified in English; we usually call those documents "formal specifications." You can write it terse, non-natural language with consistent, defined terminology to save room (as most specs are), or colloquial (natural) language if you really want. I wouldn't recommend the latter, but it's definitely useful when presenting specs to a less technically informed audience.
> complex applications can be fully specified in English
Of course. We established that at the beginning. The entire discussion is about exactly that. It was confirmed again in the previous comment. However, that is not natural. I expect most native English speakers would be entirely incapable of fully specifying a complex application or anything else of similar complexity. That is not natural use.
While the words, basic syntax, etc. may mirror that found in natural language, a specification is really a language of its own. It is nothing like the language you will find people speaking at the bar or when writing pointless comments on Reddit. And that's because it is a programming language.
> I expect most native English speakers would be entirely incapable of fully specifying a complex application or anything else of similar complexity.
Your original postulation was that it simply wasn't possible, implying nobody could do it. The fact that most native English speakers wouldn't be able to do it doesn't mean nobody can do it.
I agree that most native English speakers wouldn't be able to write a reasonably complete spec in any type of language, not just because they lack the language skill, but because they simply wouldn't have the imagination and knowledge of what to create to begin with, let alone how to express it.
> Your original postulation was that it simply wasn't possible, implying nobody could do it.
Then you must have mistakenly replied to the wrong comment, I guess? My original comment, and every one that followed, postulated that so-called "careful use of English", as in what you are talking about and what we have always been talking about, is a programming language. Given that it is a programming language, how could it not be used in that way? That's what programming languages do best.
> The fact that most native English speakers wouldn't be able to do it doesn't mean nobody can do it.
Of course. But the fact that most native English speakers wouldn't be able to do it proves that it is isn't natural language. This "technical English" language may resemble the natural language also known as English in many ways, but, as even you pointed out earlier, it is not the same language.
People can often be observed to be deliberately making an effort in casual, social, natural language conversation. It flows for some people more than others. Try watching Big Bang Theory and see characters at times being deliberate with their words and at other times responding automatically.
An LLM can do increasingly well as a fly on the wall, but it’s common for people using an LLM to be less collaborative with an LLM and for them to expect the LLM to structure the conversation. Hence the suggestion to be careful in your prompting.
> at times being deliberate with their words and at other times responding automatically.
Right. On one side you have programming language and on the other natural language.
They can intermingle, if that is what you are trying to say? You can see this even in traditional computer programming. One will often switch between deliberate expression and casual, natural expression (what often get called comments in that context).
