What is "Open Language"?

[Richmond]

On 24/10/15 23:04, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> 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.

I'm not entirely sure why you equate my "someone" with Mark Waddingham; 
who has quite adequately demonstrated to be
"a right Captain Sensible" :)

R.