The author's argument is a classic literature criticism / philosophy argument and I'm kicking myself trying to remember which specific person/theory from philosophy / lit crit he is more or less paraphrasing.
Note that I'm not by any means accusing the original author of plagiarism or of trying to pull off a stunt. Convergent evolution makes perfect sense. Although comp sci languages are a bit more rigid than other human languages, trying to express creative / complicated stuff in a human created language is an old, heavily discussed problem, even if the original author doesn't know it. Does this go all the way back to Plato? I can't remember its just too early in the morning.
The bright side is "we" as a species have been churning out new lit more or less continuously for a couple millenia, so even if lit production dies off at some point in the future (and I don't think it will) that means that in computer languages we "only" have a couple more millenia of productive programming left.
Note that I'm not by any means accusing the original author of plagiarism or of trying to pull off a stunt. Convergent evolution makes perfect sense. Although comp sci languages are a bit more rigid than other human languages, trying to express creative / complicated stuff in a human created language is an old, heavily discussed problem, even if the original author doesn't know it. Does this go all the way back to Plato? I can't remember its just too early in the morning.
The bright side is "we" as a species have been churning out new lit more or less continuously for a couple millenia, so even if lit production dies off at some point in the future (and I don't think it will) that means that in computer languages we "only" have a couple more millenia of productive programming left.