While I
found the reading to be very long and drawn out, it did contain a lot of
interesting points. I enjoyed the cross-analysis of computer software and
language with that of human language. Previously I did not really believe that
there could be too many parallels between our language and that of computers,
considering that in my experience when trying to explain processing to a
non-computer science student I was often at a loss for words. Not to mention,
that once I presented them with both visual and vocal examples there continues
to be confusion and understandability is definitely an issue. However, after
reading these sections I have come to realize that this is an example of
language barrier just as any other, the fact that it involves the language of
computers with that of humans is not important.
Interestingly,
I found the mention of French philosopher Michel Foucault to be very relevant to
me. I recently read an excerpt by him in the article “Orientalism and Indian
Religions,” which did not have anything to do with computers. But in the
article, Foucault spoke of what he termed “representations.” Foucault stated
that language can have limitations and contain biases; therefore, our
representations –or how we describe something with language—is not completely
accurate. Ironically, in this reading for class Foucault is mention –with regards
to his definition of the term “statement.” Matthew Fuller then brings forth the
point that Foucault imagined this term as being limited by humans, and did not
consider the term to have a different or similar significance to that of
computer language.
I found
there to be an overarching theme of language within all the sections, and how
computer language and human language have more in common than one would assume.
Therefore after reading what Fuller had to say, and looking through the
responses I found Doug’s quote very intriguing and the question he posed about
computer language being taught in grade school very relevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment