This article is an Appeal to Novelty fallacy. He never gives a reason why explicit language is better - just that it occurred later in civilization.
Beyond this, natural language programming doesn't preclude explicitness. You could still have portions of limited explicit language or even portions of actual code if that is insufficient.
Natural language programming gets us two advantages:
1. Easy entry (presumably what the author cares about)
2. A language which is composed of an infinite number of DSLs - but without the pains of limited language scope and in which DSLs are actually easy to write. This actually fixes the problem author was taking about - using a language for a purpose it clearly wasn't meant to.
And if you think natural language programming is going to get rid of symbolism in language, I've got a U+1F309 to sell you.
Beyond this, natural language programming doesn't preclude explicitness. You could still have portions of limited explicit language or even portions of actual code if that is insufficient.
Natural language programming gets us two advantages:
1. Easy entry (presumably what the author cares about)
2. A language which is composed of an infinite number of DSLs - but without the pains of limited language scope and in which DSLs are actually easy to write. This actually fixes the problem author was taking about - using a language for a purpose it clearly wasn't meant to.
And if you think natural language programming is going to get rid of symbolism in language, I've got a U+1F309 to sell you.