[ANN] www.krugle.com --- xtalk not a real language

[Richmond Mathewson]

Jesse Sng wrote:

"So xTalk is not a real language, but it can be used to build real applications. Hmmm....."

The only way anyone can describe xTalk as not being a 'real' language is if one
adheres to an incredibly narrow definition of what constitutes a language.

It reminds me of the dispute about sign-languages used by deaf people -
some academic (who should have known better) stated that sign-languages are
not real languages because they don't use sound! This is palpable rubbish; were
it true these electronically coded bits of stuff that I am belting into my computer at
the moment would not be language either!

This whole debate revolves around an all too common phenomenon that comes
about as a result of human egoism and insecurity:

Become an expert and then rubbish anyone who challenges you in your field.

Of course xTalk is a family of closely related computer languages 
(and I wrote at greater length and greater pomposity about this in my MSc thesis
which is available for download at my Yahoo group - so if you have a rainy day
and nothing better to do with yourself . . .), and the word 'real' is essentially
a meaningless token in this context.

Probably the best response to any stuffed-shirts who state that xTalk is not
a real computer language (presumably the corollary of that argument is that 
it is a "fake" language - see what I mean?) is for one of the better programmers in
our community to develop a website that searches for xTalk code, and
we then will have no Kugels any more (sorry, a pun I slipped in for Klaus Major and
the German contingent).

sincerely, Richmond Mathewson
 
____________________________________________________________

"Philosophical problems are confusions arising owing to the fluidity of meanings users attach to words and phrases."
                                       Mathewson, 2006
____________________________________________________________