Re: Problems of Symbol Congestion in Computer Languages
On 17/02/2011 9:11 PM, rantingrick wrote: . On Feb 16, 4:07 pm, Xah Lee wrote: .> Vast majority of computer languages use ASCII as its character set. .> This means, it jams multitude of operators into about 20 symbols. .> Often, a symbol has multiple meanings depending on contex. . . I think in theory the idea of using Unicode chars is good, however in . reality the implementation would be a nightmare! A wise man once . said: "The road to hell is paved in good intentions". ;-) . . If we consider all the boundaries that exist between current . (programming) languages (syntax, IDE's, paradigms, etc) then we will . realize that adding *more* symbols does not help, no, it actually . hinders! And Since Unicode is just a hodgepodge encoding of many . regional (natural) languages --of which we have too many already in . this world! What does your aversion to cultural diversity have to do with Lisp, rantingrick? Gee, I do hope you're not a racist, rantingrick. . -- proliferating Unicode symbols in source code only serves . to further complicate our lives with even *more* multiplicity! . . Those of us on the *inside* know that Unicode is nothing more than an . poor attempt to monkey patch multiplicity. And that statement barely . scratches the surface of an underlying disease that plagues all of . human civilization. The root case is selfishness, which *then* . propagates up and manifests itself as multiplicity in our everyday . lives. It starts as the simple selfish notion of "me" against "other" . and then extrapolates exponentially into the collective of "we" . against "others". . . This type of grouping --or selfish typecasting if you will-- is . impeding the furtherer evolution of homo sapiens. Actually we are . moving at a snails pace when we could be moving at the speed of light! . We *should* be evolving as a genetic algorithm but instead we are the . ignorant slaves of our own collective selfishness reduced to naive and . completely random implementations of bozosort! What does that have to do with Lisp, rantingrick? . Now don't misunderstand all of this as meaning "multiplicity is bad", . because i am not suggesting any such thing! On the contrary, . multiplicity is VERY important in emerging problem domains. Before . such a domain is understood by the collective unconscience we need . options (multiplicity!) from which to choose from. However, once a . "collective understanding" is reached we must reign in the . multiplicity or it will become yet another millstone around our . evolutionary necks, slowing our evolution. Classic illogic. Evolution depends upon diversity as grist for the mill of selection, rantingrick. A genetically homogeneous population cannot undergo allele frequency shifts, rantingrock. . But multiplicity is just the very beginning of a downward spiral of . devolution. Once you allow multiplicity to become the sport of . Entropy, it may be too late for recovery! Entropy leads to shock . (logical disorder) which then leads to stagnation (no logical order at . all!). At this point we loose all forward momentum in our evolution. . And why? Because of nothing more than self gratifying SELFISHNESS. . . Anyone with half a brain understands the metric system is far superior . (on many levels) then any of the other units of measurement. However . again we have failed to reign in the multiplicity and so entropy has . run a muck, and we are like a deer "caught-in-the-headlights" of the . shock of our self induced devolution and simultaneously entirely . incapable of seeing the speeding mass that is about to plow over us . with a tremendous kinetic energy -- evolutionary stagnation! . . Sadly this disease of selfishness infects many aspects of the human . species to the very detriment of our collective evolution. Maybe one . day we will see the light of logic and choose to unite in a collective . evolution. Even after thousands of years we are but infants on the . evolutionary scale because we continue to feed the primal urges of . selfishness. What does any of that have to do with Lisp, rantingrick? And you omitted the #1 most serious objection to Xah's proposal, rantingrick, which is that to implement it would require unrealistic things such as replacing every 101-key keyboard with 10001-key keyboards and training everyone to use them. Xah would have us all replace our workstations with machines that resemble pipe organs, rantingrick, or perhaps the cockpits of the three surviving Space Shuttles. No doubt they'd be enormously expensive, as well as much more difficult to learn to use, rantingrick. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Problems of Symbol Congestion in Computer Languages
On 17/02/2011 10:29 PM, rantingrick wrote: On Feb 17, 8:40 pm, Cthun wrote: What does your aversion to cultural diversity have to do with Lisp, rantingrick? Gee, I do hope you're not a racist, rantingrick. Why must language be constantly "connected-at-the-hip" to cultural diversity? Language is a part of culture, rantingrick. People have this irrational fear that if we create a single universal language then *somehow* freedom have been violated. No, it is that if we stop using the others, or forcibly wipe them out, that something irreplaceable will have been lost, rantingrick. You *do* understand that language is just a means of communication, correct? Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. A language is also a cultural artifact, rantingrick. If we lose, say, the French language, we lose one of several almost-interchangeable means of communication, rantingrick. But we also lose something as unique and irreplaceable as the original canvas of the Mona Lisa, rantingrick. And i would say a very inefficient means. However, until telekinesis becomes common-place the only way us humans have to communicate is through a fancy set of grunts and groans. Since that is the current state of our communication thus far, would it not be beneficial that at least we share a common world wide mapping of this noise making? What does your question have to do with Lisp, rantingrick? Hey, wait, i have an idea... maybe some of us should drive on the right side of the road and some on the left. This way we can be unique (psst: SELFISH) from one geographic location on the earth to another geographic location on the earth. Classic illogic. Comparing, say, the loss of the French language to standardizing on this is like comparing the loss of the Mona Lisa to zeroing one single bit in a computer somewhere, rantingrick. Surely this multiplicity would not cause any problems? Because, heck, selfishness is so much more important than anyones personal safety anyway Non sequitur. Do you see how this morphs into a foolish consistency? What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with Lisp, rantingrick? Classic illogic. Evolution depends upon diversity as grist for the mill of selection, rantingrick. A genetically homogeneous population cannot undergo allele frequency shifts, rantingrock. Oh, maybe you missed this paragraph What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with Lisp, rantingrick? . Now don't misunderstand all of this as meaning "multiplicity is bad", . because i am not suggesting any such thing! On the contrary, . multiplicity is VERY important in emerging problem domains. Before . such a domain is understood by the collective unconscience we need . options (multiplicity!) from which to choose from. However, once a . "collective understanding" is reached we must reign in the . multiplicity or it will become yet another millstone around our . evolutionary necks, slowing our evolution. Classic erroneous presupposition that evolution is supposed to reach a certain point and then stop and stagnate on a single universal standard, rantingrick. Or maybe this one: . I think in theory the idea of using Unicode chars is good, however in . reality the implementation would be a nightmare! A wise man once . said: "The road to hell is paved in good intentions". ;-) Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. I read that one, rantingrick. Or this one: . If we consider all the boundaries that exist between current . (programming) languages (syntax, IDE's, paradigms, etc) then we will . realize that adding *more* symbols does not help, no, it actually . hinders! And Since Unicode is just a hodgepodge encoding of many . regional (natural) languages --of which we have too many already in . this world! Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. I read that one, too, rantingrick. What does any of that have to do with Lisp, rantingrick? The topic is *ahem*... "Problems of Symbol Congestion in Computer Languages"... of which i think is not only a lisp issue but an issue of any language. Classic illogic. The topic of the *thread* is *computer* languages, yet you attacked non-computer languages in the majority of your rant, rantingrick. Furthermore, the topic of the *newsgroup* is the *Lisp subset* of computer languages. (see my comments about selfishness for insight) What does that have to do with Lisp, rantingrick? And you omitted the #1 most serious objection to Xah's proposal, rantingrick, which is that to implement it would require unrealistic things such as replacing every 101-key keyboard with 10001-key keyboards and training everyone to use them. Xah would have us all replace our workstations with machines that resemble pipe organs, rantingrick, or perhaps the cockpits of the three surviving Space Shuttles. No doubt they'd be enormo
Re: Problems of Symbol Congestion in Computer Languages
On 18/02/2011 7:43 AM, Xah Lee wrote: On 2011-02-17, Cthun wrote: │ And you omitted the #1 most serious objection to Xah's proposal, │ rantingrick, which is that to implement it would require unrealistic │ things such as replacing every 101-key keyboard with 10001-key keyboards What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with Lisp, Lee? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
