If by "real-world" you mean "sending signals to a display within certain timing constraints", sure.
My point is that software is inherently virtual, therefore there are far fewer constraints placed on its shape, size and smell than any similarly elaborate construction in the real world. For example, if I want two cogs to interact with each other in the real world, they have to be physically adjacent. If I want to things to interact in software, I just say so and it is done.
And that is what gives programming language designers the freedom to do a much better job. Most of the languages in common use today are the way they are because they are essentially exposing an underlying architecture with some syntax over the top, or doing the same at one degree removed. Just because we've always done things in a particular way doesn't mean that we need to keep doing them that way.
Which goes back to my original point that we have essentially artificially constrained ourselves by insisting that anything we do be reasonably similar to everything we've done before.
My point is that software is inherently virtual, therefore there are far fewer constraints placed on its shape, size and smell than any similarly elaborate construction in the real world. For example, if I want two cogs to interact with each other in the real world, they have to be physically adjacent. If I want to things to interact in software, I just say so and it is done.
And that is what gives programming language designers the freedom to do a much better job. Most of the languages in common use today are the way they are because they are essentially exposing an underlying architecture with some syntax over the top, or doing the same at one degree removed. Just because we've always done things in a particular way doesn't mean that we need to keep doing them that way.
Which goes back to my original point that we have essentially artificially constrained ourselves by insisting that anything we do be reasonably similar to everything we've done before.