Seems related..

from https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo181533760.html

Some discussion here https://forum.algorithmicpattern.org/t/algorithms-and-language/594

I need to read more, but so far see this more as pointing out that the way we think about algorithms has been different in the past, and is changing now. It's a similar approach to Bret Victor in his "Future of Programming" talk. The 'future of programming' title seems to sometimes be taken unironically in this community but it's really about the past of programming, pointing out that in the early days, the possibilities were much more open than they are now, that programming has now got really stuck in a limited view of itself, and that we need to look back to look for ways of imagining an alternative future.

I like this from page 12: "It is primarily these earlier ways of thinking—the ones that are noticeably different from modern computation—that I emphasize in this book. In the history of science, it is a methodological precept to avoid falling into the style called “Whig history”—to avoid, that is, describing historical developments through linear narratives of progress that implicitly side with the positions that won. Histories of mathematical symbols tend to be extremely Whiggish, complimenting authors who use notations that later became standard and chastising those who do not. I certainly do not mean to deny the advantages of symbolism, but my purpose is less to celebrate it than to understand it, and I accordingly hope to describe what was lost with the adoption of symbols as well as what was gained. I also hope to show that the symbolic method is not a fixed category. The ways people have understood symbols changed multiple times over the centuries, and the modern idea of algorithm is a product of particular circumstances and epistemological commitments."

I think there's an interesting parallel with musical staff notation here.. Some clear advantages in terms of communication, but also a great deal has been lost, e.g. the loss of canntaireachd in the scottish highlands

@Jack Rusher Yep agreed that formal languages are required to communicate algorithms precisely, but again I don't think Binder's argument is that mathematics is bad or anything like that. It's more that people have worked with algorithms in different ways in the past, and that there are a lot of possibilities for the future. I'm a bit surprised to see pushback for this idea here - isn't that what the 'future of coding' is about?

I'm not personally interested in LLMs at all though.. I'm too old to really engage with another 'AI' wave. I'm here for the more general idea of looking at the history of language and algorithms as a way to see and work beyond contemporary assumptions.