Problems of Symbol Congestion in Computer Languages

[Littlefield, Tyler]

 >My intention was to educate him on the pitfalls of multiplicity.
O. that's what you call that long-winded nonsense? Education? You must 
live in America. Can I hazard a guess that your universal language might 
be english? Has it not ever occured to you that people take pride in 
their language? It is part of their culture. And yet you rant on about 
selfishness?
On 2/17/2011 8:29 PM, rantingrick wrote:
> On Feb 17, 8:40 pm, Cthun<cthun_... at qmail.net.au>  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? People have this irrational fear that if we create a single
> universal language then *somehow* freedom have been violated.
>
> You *do* understand that language is just a means of communication,
> correct? 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?
>
> <sarcasm>  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. Surely this multiplicity
> would not cause any problems? Because, heck, selfishness is so much
> more important than anyones personal safety anyway</sarcasm>
>
> Do you see how this morphs into a foolish consistency?
>
>> . 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.
> Oh, maybe you missed this paragraph:
>
>   . 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.
>
> 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". ;-)
>
> 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!
>
>> 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. (see my comments about selfishness for insight)
>
>> 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.
> Yes, if you'll read my entire post then you'll clearly see that i
> disagree with Mr Lee on using Unicode chars in source code. My
> intention was to educate him on the pitfalls of multiplicity.
>
>


-- 

Thanks,
Ty