What is "Open Language"?

[Richmond]

On 26/10/15 16:17, Roland Huettmann wrote:
> Originally I had thought that "Open Language" means to allow LiveCode to
> run other scripting languages within it's framework, for example using
> Python, or somehow link such languages into LiveCode.
>
> I started hating "machines" who started "understanding" me and making
> assumptions about what I want. Already I hate when at Google confines me to
> a certain earthly region and that it became almost impossible or very
> difficult to change language. Again I want to become a "free" user of the
> Internet. Or at least, there should be a button to switch OFF all
> assumption about who I am and what I want.
>
> I would love LiveCode NOT to understand the uncertainty of me. Computers
> should not be behave being as ambiguous as we humans are.

That is THE STATEMENT that sums everything up that is odd about the
idea of 'Open Language'.

Why do I also have a funny feeling that all that any attempt at 'Open 
Language'
would do is serve to close the minds of those working with it???

Richmond.
>   We love them
> because they do what we want them to do, and not the other ways around, and
> computer language should not leave much space for interpretation. It
> follows a logic, and as long as it does that, it is acceptable. And we love
> LiveCode because it allows to express logic in a way which is near to human
> language - but will never replace it (I hope at least).
>
> So, I like Monte's suggestion to have an auto-correct feature to help
> correcting wrong input and wrong spelling - the correct one being defined
> in the dictionary with as few synonyms as possible, but not force us not to
> do something wrong. In case of wrong-doing, the compiler should bark at us,
> or the application will misbehave - and we have learnt from doing wrong and
> may have a chance to correct ourselves.
>
> (The new scripting environment of FileMaker 14 is not so bad in
> accomplishing some of this. A good place to take lessons from. As much as I
> hated the old scripting environment, the new one has nice edges and really
> is supportive...)
>
> The language should grow not in the sense of making things more ambiguous
> as they already are, but just advance the capabilities of expression within
> limitations. If these limitations would be removed, the river will not find
> it's bed to the ocean and spread all over in an uncontrolled way. We would
> have big problems understanding each-other, and the effect will be simply
> chaotic programming style.
>
> I do not believe that the need for programming will die in 20 years as
> someone here stated. Such prognosis was there already 20 years ago that
> soon machines will program themselves. At least I do not want it - or only
> as much as boundaries can be clearly defined. We could also state that
> logic will not be needed in 20 years, or that we all started stop using our
> mental capabilities and hand over our brain to the computer.
>
> I do not want the computer to switch on the light in my room when I enter,
> and know in advance what I am going to do or think or wish - unless I
> completely control its behavior. Thinking further, this leads to quite a
> philosophical discussion and touches the base of our human existence and
> the notion about who we are.
>
> Think of musical notes. Would Mozart have been able to communicate his
> genius without them? Musical notes leave all the space for expression, but
> still confine the basic intention into a framework of the limitations of a
> language.
>
> Why do we love LiveCode? Or why would students love it? Because it gives
> freedom of expression within a set of limitations - using simple English
> expressions. How would a Chinese learn all the intricacies of English
> vocabulary? He will not. Keep it simple and "stupid" within it's own set,
> as musical notes are not that difficult to learn, but using them is quite
> an interesting and different matter.
>
> When there is a flow of beauty in such language, people will catch on. But
> do not make it to be really English. Let us rather focus on thinking what
> such typical user might expect when writing a statement. Will the machine
> act accordingly? Or will there be unexpected results? And if there are
> unexpected results, there must be "work-rounds", and then things become
> ugly.
>
> In this sense I would raise my voice against "Open Language".
>
> But I am all for more and more beauty in LiveCode, and for ever growing
> power accomplishing things that we want the machines to do in the most
> logical way possible using LiveCode. And I think the "team" is trying to
> just accomplish this - step by step. I admire them.
>
> People are not against learning as long as there is a fruit to be
> gained.And if we do not challenge our brain with ever growing
> sophistication then it will also just die away. )
>
> Roland
>
>

Richmond.