The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is sometimes applied in computer science to postulate that programmers skilled in a certain programming language may not have a (deep) understanding of some concepts of other languages. Though it may equally apply to any area where languages are “synthesized” for specific purposes, computer science is especially fertile when it comes to creating languages.
Computer programmers who are fluent in different programming languages (e.g. C, Prolog, Ruby), and/or programming paradigms (e.g. logical programming, declarative programming, imperative programming, functional programming, object oriented programming), often see the same problem in completely different ways.
One way of stating the Church–Turing thesis is that any language that can simulate a Turing machine can be used to implement any effective algorithm — in this sense, it is irrelevant what language is used to implement a particular algorithm, as that exact algorithm can also be implemented in every other language. However, when designing an algorithm to solve a particular problem, programmers are sometimes heavily influenced by the language constructs available. Though a large part of this is undoubtedly the way of least resistance (implement whatever is easiest to implement), there is also an element of “appropriateness” or “naturalness” that seems to compel the programmer to a design that “befits” the language.
This is a similar situation to Feynman’s view of physical theories: it is possible for two theories to use completely different concepts and rules but still give identical predictions. However the ‘parameterization’ of each theory will suggest different possible modifications and experiments to the human physicist who uses it.
Most programmers consider this to be beneficial, and the bewildering multitude of programming languages can be defended with the remark that a new programming language, while not extending the set of all possible algorithms, does extend the set of all algorithms we can efficiently think about. A well-known saying by Alan Perlis states that “a language that doesn’t affect the way you think about programming is not worth knowing”.
But does the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis apply to programming languages? Yes, it does. And what is more, they are a pure example of the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Some computer scientists argue that because most programming languages are Turing-complete, they can express the same computation. This is partly true, an a close examination of the consequences of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis will show why:
* impossibilities of translations between languages: some high level language constructs cannot be expressed in other languages, like concurrency, process communication and synchronization, continuations, real-time keywords, etc… To use them, they will need external libraries programmed in low-level languages, which are not part of the original language.
* impossibilities of reformulations in the same language: as with translations between languages, the same keywords will not have equivalent ways to express the same computation.
* verbalization of thought: programming languages are tools used to create programs, and as tools, their limitations bound the programmer expressability and creativity.
Related Leave a Comment
No comments yet.