Re: A Compiler for Natural Language (transator that translates from natural language to C++)

nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
16 May 2005 14:29:32 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
A Compiler for Natural Language (transator that translates from natura shakti.misra@wipro.com (DeltaOne) (2005-05-16)
Re: A Compiler for Natural Language (transator that translates from na nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-05-16)
Re: A Compiler for Natural Language (transator that translates from na cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2005-05-16)
Re: A Compiler for Natural Language (transator that translates from na joe@burgershack.com (Randy) (2005-05-16)
Re: A Compiler for Natural Language (transator that translates from na kleinecke@astound.net (2005-05-18)
Re: A Compiler for Natural Language (transator that translates from na DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2005-05-18)
Re: A Compiler for Natural Language (transator that translates from na daffra.claudio@gmail.com (claudio daffa) (2013-11-07)
Re: A Compiler for Natural Language (transator that translates from na itz@buug.org (Ian Zimmerman) (2013-11-18)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 16 May 2005 14:29:32 -0400
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
References: 05-05-141
Keywords: C++, translator

"DeltaOne" <shakti.misra@wipro.com> writes:
|>
|> I got very good response for the C++ intermediate representation. And
|> thanks to all the experts. Now i need some help for one project I am
|> doing as a part of my study. Well it may sound a bit off track but the
|> idea is to desing a compiler that learns language like human learn. I
|> am explaining my idea little bit. This compiler is a natural language
|> system That is near to an expert system. The aim of the system is to
|> convert natural language statements into C++ (or any other
|> language,but we need to feed that language structure into this
|> application). We train the compiler to the destination language to
|> which it should compile. ...
|>
|> [This strikes me as one of those initially appealing bad ideas that's
|> failed many times before, so I would start by looking at previous
|> efforts. If you restrict your natural language to something simple
|> enough to be translated mechanically into computer code, that's COBOL,
|> which isn't as awful as the academic comp sci folklore would have it,
|> but still isn't a direction that anyone is going now. Beyond that I'd
|> think that you'd run straight into the tarpit of trying to parse
|> natural language syntax which has lingered just beyond the state of
|> the art for the past fifty years. -John]


Ah, but just think how much more deeply confused we are now than way
back then :-)


Yes, absolutely. One of my ex-colleagues is a world expert on this,
and my last conversation with her on the matter (a decade back)
implied that she expected neither of us to live long enough to see a
solution. The experts had given up, and retreated to the task of
trying to understand how human language works - which they are still
working on.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.