1) He said - "you can comprehend it without knowing the language" and you responded with "well, of course you can't read it - you don't know it!". The argument is specifically about being able to read a language without knowing what % ! and $ stand for.
2) Equating a programming language to a human language as if proficiency or deficiency in the first implies something about the second is really a bad idea. Human languages evolve naturally without a designer who can make a language less or more readable. For a programming language, there is always a designer, and readability by a person "unskilled in the art" is a major category by which the language is judged.
1) He said - "you can comprehend it without knowing the language" and you responded with "well, of course you can't read it - you don't know it!". The argument is specifically about being able to read a language without knowing what % ! and $ stand for.
2) Equating a programming language to a human language as if proficiency or deficiency in the first implies something about the second is really a bad idea. Human languages evolve naturally without a designer who can make a language less or more readable. For a programming language, there is always a designer, and readability by a person "unskilled in the art" is a major category by which the language is judged.