What is "Open Language"?

[J. Landman Gay]

On 10/24/2015 1:51 PM, Richmond wrote:
> 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.

Funny you bring that up, I just read this article minutes ago:

<http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/23/coding-academies-are-nonsense/>

To quote: "Who needs to code when you can use visual building blocks or 
even plain English to describe intent? Advances in natural-language 
processing and conceptual modeling will remove the need for traditional 
coding from app development. Software development tools will soon 
understand what you mean versus what you say."

So not everyone agrees with you.

The remarks about natural English in the article make me think LC ought 
to be more prominent.

> 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.

I know Mark Waddingham pretty well, and I've never heard him propose 
anything that he didn't already have a good idea how to accomplish.

-- 
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com