I was doing some browsing on programming languages today and found a gem of a quote that I think also applies to human languages:

“There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.” — Bjarne Stroustrup

There is a kernel of advice in there for those who complain about every-other imperfection in Esperanto.

kaŝperanto:I was doing some browsing on programming languages today and found a gem of a quote that I think also applies to human languages:

“There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.” — Bjarne Stroustrup

There is a kernel of advice in there for those who complain about every-other imperfection in Esperanto.

+1!

Nobody complains about John Wilkins' Philosophical Language, but then, nobody uses it. In anything, especially something so complex as a language, people will find something to complain about. And if that problem (real or perceived) is rectified, they will complain about something else. Language is kinda like an area rug we have; if we smoothed out one wrinkle, another appeared somewhere else! Nobody complains about it anymore, but that is mostly due to the fact that it is rolled up in a storage room .

+1 QFT.

This is a nice variation on the anthropic principle: "Every system will create its own spectator."
Just replace "spectator" with "critic" and you're there.

It is interesting how many parallels there are between human languages and programming languages (and many other things). Lately I've been studying the Lisp (Scheme dialect) and Forth languages, which are very obscure languages that most programmers don't even know about. The revelations one gets studying a Lisp-like language are heavily paralleled in Esperanto and other intelligently-constructed IALs. Along with the revelations come similar frustrations with the fact that, due to momentum, most programming continues to be done in sub-par languages (C/C++/Java/etc).

Another quote from the same page I found the original that provides insight into these frustrations:

"If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution. -- Robert Sewell"

nornen:+1 QFT.

This is a nice variation on the anthropic principle: "Every system will create its own spectator."
Just replace "spectator" with "critic" and you're there.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is QFT?

kaŝperanto:what is QFT?

QFT

kaŝperanto:It is interesting how many parallels there are between human languages and programming languages (and many other things). Lately I've been studying the Lisp (Scheme dialect) and Forth languages, which are very obscure languages that most programmers don't even know about. The revelations one gets studying a Lisp-like language are heavily paralleled in Esperanto and other intelligently-constructed IALs. Along with the revelations come similar frustrations with the fact that, due to momentum, most programming continues to be done in sub-par languages (C/C++/Java/etc).

I don't think that LISP be obscure. What detail of lisp gives you that impression?

Maybe the most iconic and typical aspect of LISP in comparison to other languages is its homoiconicity. Something which isn't present in Esperanto. Nor does Esperanto use s-expressions or cons. Hence, which are the heavy parallels between Esperanto and LISP?

Also, LISP's grammar is a lot easier and more concise than Esperanto's:

(1) s_expression = atomic_symbol / "(" s_expression "."s_expression ")" / list
(2) list = "(" s_expression < s_expression > ")"
(3) atomic_symbol = letter atom_part
(4) atom_part = empty / letter atom_part / number atom_part
(5) letter = "a" / "b" / " ..." / "z"
(6) number = "1" / "2" / " ..." / "9"
(7) empty = " "

The smileys are closing parentheses.

Use alternative quotes “)” instead of " ) " to aviod appearing smiles in the forum.

kaŝperanto:I was doing some browsing on programming languages today and found a gem of a quote that I think also applies to human languages:

“There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.” — Bjarne Stroustrup

There is a kernel of advice in there for those who complain about every-other imperfection in Esperanto.

I don't know if you'll believe it but I was going to start a similar thread. Heck! I was going to use this Stroustrup quote because I'd read it last week. God!

kaŝperanto:It is interesting how many parallels there are between human languages and programming languages (and many other things). Lately I've been studying the Lisp (Scheme dialect) and Forth languages, which are very obscure languages that most programmers don't even know about.

Programmers who were born yesterday?

The revelations one gets studying a Lisp-like language are heavily paralleled in Esperanto and other intelligently-constructed IALs. Along with the revelations come similar frustrations with the fact that, due to momentum, most programming continues to be done in sub-par languages (C/C++/Java/etc).

I rather like C and C++.

But isn't there another parallel here? Changing languages for every real-or-imagined improvement wastes more time and effort than it saves. Is every old program going to be updated to the new language? Or must every shop keep experts on the old languages around just in case they're needed?

Same thing with reform proposals for Esperanto. If everyone had to learn a new grammar point every few weeks or months, and rewrite the Fundamento or Privat's writings or Auld's poetry and everything else, the effort wouldn't be worth it.

Yes, stability is critically important. I have been around the constructed international auxiliary language field for many years, and I have concluded that instability is deadly. Yes, after some period of initial "testing" it might be appropriate to make a few changes based on experience, but even then, the Better becomes the enemy of the Good Enough. (I note that Zamenhof did his "testing" before he published.)

Some time or another I may have mentioned this here on lernu!, but some years ago I wrote an essay (in English), Thoughts on IAL Success. Certainly I by no means consider it any kind of last word, but it contains my thoughts about how Good Enough Is Good Enough, and endless tinkering can be deadly.

If I had been Zamenhof I might have done a few things differently in Esperanto, but E-o functions well enough as it is, so apart from expansion of vocabulary items to deal with (relatively) new experiences, the Fundamento should be left alone. I have had a similar experience with Interlingua. It was defined well in 1951 (the dictionary) and 1951/55 (the grammar), and those have served well, apart from useful new vocabulary items. Nevertheless I personally have tangled openly and publicly with someone who thinks he knows better and would overthrow more than a half century of usage in the name of theoretical purism. Once an auxiliary language (Esperanto or any other) is Good Enough, stability is critical.