Back in the 90s I took a linguistics class and wanted my semester paper to be a review of the literature on this topic. I started my research and found nothing. I figured it was my research skills falling short and I didn't know the right terminology and places to look. So I asked my professor. He suggested talking to other faculty. I did. They gave me some terminology suggestions buuuut.... also told me that they didn't think there was much out there on the topic. In fact, one of them told me I almost certainly wouldn't find anything. And he was right (then, having burned half the semester chasing down a dead end and facing the choice between doing original research in two months vs changing topic, I picked human usage of computer language, which got me a C+ because the prof was adamant computer languages aren't human languages).<p>Anyway, I was astounded that this aspect of acquisition wasn't well-studied, and I'm glad to see it has been since.<p>Edit: I never meant to contend that computer languages are human languages in the sense that the former can function in every way the later can -- so I wasn't suggesting that anyone should say "C is a language just as Spanish is a language." But I <i>did</i> argue that programming languages come by their name honestly, are meant to communicate between humans, and most importantly find their way into language colloquially, and as such deserve attention from linguists. My prof seemed to have engaged with the paper as if I were making the "C is like Spanish!" argument, whether that's because (a) I wasn't clear enough in my writing (b) he wasn't paying close attention or (c) there's something else that eluded me is left as an exercise for... well, me, and apparently hacker news participants who want to take it up as a matter of discussion. :)