What is "Open Language"?

[Mark Waddingham]

On 2015-10-24 21:00, Richmond wrote:
> Well, what to one person is 'natural language' may not be to another:
> and a "10,000 different, often incompatible and sometimes confusing,
> custom syntax options" does seem to sum that problem up fairly 
> effectively.

Indeed - what is 'natural' to me is different to others. However, 
language is about communication between individuals and groups. Each 
develops their own idea of 'naturality' in that context.

I have to say that what people do in the privacy of their own homes and 
with friends is entirely up to them and generally of little interest to 
me - if they wish to spend a great deal of time developing weird and 
wonderful ways of setting the rect of a button then, you know what, they 
can go 'knock themselves out' and have as much fun as they can possibly 
have with such an endevaour (I certainly won't be spending any time 
doing so).

However, when 'these' people have to interact with others outside of 
such small groups, then they will find that *unless* their new approach 
fits entirely within the constraints of the group they are proffering it 
to and is demonstrably 'better' or gives more benefits than the existing 
one, then they will most likely find limited support.

> It is an unreachable ideal for the plain and simple reason that
> computers do not work in the
> same way as human brains.

Interesting - I must confess I'm not quite up to date with the latest 
frontier research on that subject but certainly last time I did dig into 
it that was still an unanswered question.

If you are absolutely sure about your assertion and have a proof for it 
then I suggest you write up a paper right now and submit it for peer 
review in an appropriate academic journal - you would quickly find 
yourself probably being inline for a sizeable prize or two, and 
international renown (and indeed probably have a whole array of job 
offers at many prestigious academic and research institutions around the 
world).

(Just for the sake of others, I should explain - asserting that 
'computers do not work in the same way as human brains' means that the 
human brain is fundamentally capable of solving a greater set of 
problems than modern computers - i.e. the human brain is not a Turing 
Machine but something more)

Of course, whilst intellectually interesting, the reality is that 
computers have gotten pretty darn good (and continue to get better) at 
approximating the outward effects of the human brain in every increasing 
areas; which means whether or not their computational models are 
equivalent or not is really not that relevant on a day-to-day basis.

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

-- 
Mark Waddingham ~ mark at livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps