Is it feasible to ascribe pronunciations to distinct source code concepts?

Question

I frequently tutor fellow students in programming, most often in C++ or Java.

It is uniquely aggravating to try to verbally convey the essential syntax of a C++ expression. The speaker must give either an idiomatic translation into English, or a full specification of the code in verbal longhand, using explicit yet slow terms such as "opening parenthesis", "bitwise and", et cetera. Neither of these solutions is optimal.

In C++, there is a finite set of keywords—63—and operators—54, discounting named operators and treating compound assignment operators and prefix versus postfix auto-increment and decrement as distinct. There are just a few types of literal, a similar number of grouping symbols, and the semicolon. Unless I'm utterly mistaken, that's about it.

Would it not then be feasible to ascribe a concise, unique pronunciation to each of these distinct concepts (including one for whitespace, where it is required) and go from there? Programming languages are far more regular than natural languages, so the pronunciation could be standardised.

Answer 1

Instead of creating new "words" to describe them, for things such as "include" you could simply prefix it with "keyword" when saying it aloud. You could use words/phrases commonly known to say other parts as well. As with any new programmer, you have to literally describe everything anyway, so I don't think that requires special attention. I think creating new words is the harder method...

So, for example:

#include <iostream>;

int main()
{
   if (1 < 2)
     return 1;
   else
     return 0;
}

Could be read out as:

(keyword) include iostream new-line (keyword) int main no params start block if number 1 (operator) less than number 2 new-line (keyword) return number 1 new-line (keyword) else new-line (keyword) return number 0 end block

Treat words in () as optional descriptive words, most likely to be used in more complex code. You could use the word 'literal' if you want them to actually write the descriptive word. For example

(keyword) if literal number (operator) less than literal keyword

becomes

if (number < keyword)

Other words could be given defined meanings as well, such as 'split-line' when you want them to continue on the next line, without closing any currently open parenthesis, etc.

I personally find this method quite simple to use and easy to teach. YMMV, as always.

Of course, this doesn't solve the internationalisation issue, but at worst, would result in 'new words' being used in the non-English languages, which is no worse than the proposed solution you offered.