What is "Open Language"?

[Richmond]

On 24/10/15 19:10, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> I was looking for a clear definition of LiveCode's proposed "Open 
> Language", but I've come up empty.
>
> The original Kickstarter page says only:
>
>    We will introduce a new technology called “Open Language”.
>    With Open Language, the more technical members of our community
>    can create English-like words and phrases to enable everyone to
>    write programs that use any aspect of a computer or device. If
>    you’re technical, you can read all about that here.

Talk about throw-away lines . . .

Surely (?????) LiveCode already does this: use English-like words and 
phrases
to enable everyone to write programs ????

The sticking point is this bit:

"to enable everyone to write programs that use any aspect of a computer 
or device."

Well: I still cannot talk to my USB robot or my USB footpedal set with 
LiveCode . . .

>
> ...where "here" is a link to a blog post that no longer exists.

I've always had a sneaking suspicion that "someone" went 'off at the 
mouth' a bit during
the Kickstarter and promised things that, either, they had no intention 
of keeping, or promised
things that, really, they didn't realise would involve them in so many 
unseen complexities that
they would be, effectively, unrealisable.

The definition: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=609766

is JUST a proposal, and as such, it is nothing more, and does not 
involve a feasibility study
nor a prototype,

AND

as people are NOT computers, not vice-versa, I cannot see how an "Open 
Language"
= with Human-like logic and endlessly extensible in a human-like fashion 
is ever going to be possible.

I would say, that LiveCode, at its best [because, recently, in its 
efforts to be 'clever' is seems to strayed away from that]
is pretty near to having some sort of 'naturalistic' language; but that 
is NOT an Open language.

>
> Within the community there have been broadly varying ideas about what 
> "Open Language" might entail, and I was hoping that blog post might 
> clear things up but alas it's not even in the Wayback Machine.
>
> Anyone here have a copy of that blog post?
>

How incredibly convenient that quite a few 'promises' that we remember 
from the Kickstarter have
evaporated into the miasma of cyber-space so we cannot hold people to 
them . . . .

I don't quite know why the user base of LiveCode still refuses to accept 
that RunRev is NOT being nearly as 'open'
with them as, perhaps, one would expect from an Open Source thing. 
Despite RunRev's repeated protestations
these sort of 'things' keep coming up.

I do believe that until RunRev can "come clean" with their user-base 
there will be a growing feeling of distrust which will only harm them.

Expanded too quickly, promised too many things too quickly, kept 
changing prices and conditions too quickly, avoiding some embarrassing
truths . . . um.

Let's imagine a situation:

Dear kids, those of you who would normally attend classes with me on 
Tuesday morning will be unable to
as, unfortunately, I have an unavoidable doctor's appointment, therefore 
I have had to move your class to Wednesday
morning: I am sorry to have put you to this inconvenience.

That is what I have just sent the 7 children who are due to have a class 
with me on Tuesday: it's called "being 100% open".

It has never hurt my business.

Richmond.