r wrote:
On Sep 15, 4:12 am, Hendrik van Rooyen <hend...@microcorp.co.za>
wrote:
(snip)
When a language lacks a word for a concept like "window", then (I
believe :-) ), it kind of puts a crimp in the style of thinking that a
person will do, growing up with only that language.
Are you telling us people using a language that does not have a word
for window somehow cannot comprehend what a window is, are you mad
man? Words are simply text attributes attached to objects. the text
attribute doesn't change the object in any way. just think of is
__repr__
Without an outsider (read: someone who used a different language) who
pointed out the idea of window; it is impossible for that person to
think about the concept of window except in the cases of independent
reinvention. This is because people are naturally lazy to think about
difficult concepts; "an opening on a plane" is much more difficult to
comprehend and express compared to "window". Thus people either have to
coin a new word for the complex concept or they won't be able to develop
the concept since they don't benefit from the abstraction that the new
word gives (think black-box thinking).
I would say "a word" is like a new class. A class encapsulates a
difficult concept into a much simpler wrapper so we don't have to think
about how it is implementated. New concepts and ideas will be developed
on top of these classes. Without the abstraction, we would have to use
much elaboration to express the more complex concept; and we will fail
to form conclusion earlier.
And this brings out the point: "though it is possible for any language
to illustrate any concept; the concept will require much less brain
cycle to comprehend in a fuller and richer language due to the wider
availability of abstractions".
"Yes it is possible" "But no, it is not feasible for any mere to think about
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
