flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

flat assembler > Heap > Skype bug ‘system’ level access and English is the solution

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2309
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
Furs wrote:
You may think it's more burden on the developers but Unicode is already a massive burden on them.


Indeed, the burden on both sides can be heavy. But it's all too easy (and lazy) to disregard the actual effort involved in getting things working on either side. Usually more support is better overall despite additional effort.

Furs wrote:

No, I mean people who know English on a good level, but prefer to not use it. Even if they don't know it perfectly, you don't need to know English perfectly to use software. And heck, you'll learn it more if you use it more often. Slang? It's not like software cares about slang, so it doesn't matter.


They don't necessarily have to prefer it, even if they understand it. No, you can't learn everything about a language via indirect exposure, only bits and pieces. Maybe that's good enough but probably not. Slang is usually involuntary and the differences are usually forgotten or overlooked.

It's all too easy to write off such difficulties as minor when, in fact, they carry a lot of weight. Most proposed solutions aren't easy or just plain don't work. If your proposal doesn't work, you have to amend (or remove) it. Yes, it's hard to find common ground sometimes, but cooperation needs effort on both sides.

Furs wrote:

These people even ask questions on forum how to change the language, despite them perfectly understanding English. I mean they ask the question in perfectly-good English after all. Unsurprisingly, they're usually in some sort of EU country. And what they need it for? For software UI? As if that's difficult. It is clear they just hate the English language. This stupidity and irrationality is what pisses me off. They not just love their language for emotional (i.e. stupid) reasons, but they also hate English for similar reasons (maybe jealous on it).


It might be irrational, it might not. Appearances can be deceiving. Just because somebody looks fluent doesn't mean they really are.

It's like saying, "I know C", but really I only know a small subset of it. Do I know the standard library? Signal handling? Localization/widechar? SetJmp? Floating point intricacies? Dynamic linking? Unions? Latest POSIX? Latest ISO standards? Preprocessor? MSVC and Windows API quirks? Relevant GCC flags? Makefiles (GNU? CMake? Meson?)?

Furs wrote:

I know that personal experience doesn't count as an argument, but I will say it anyway: I have never seen an asian or resident of other continent ask a question in good English (so he knows it) how to change language to his native one, or whatever. Never seen someone ask for Chinese or Japanese or Thai or whatever if he knew English (those asking in very bad English are a different matter, as they don't understand it and likely used Google Translate).

Plenty of requests for French and Spanish especially (lol), followed by German and eastern languages. Nordic ones very rarely, if ever. Pattern is obvious.


What is obvious to you isn't obvious to others.

English is indeed Germanic (see Old English, e.g. Beowulf), but it has heavy French influence (old French or Norman since the conquest). So the spelling, especially Middle English, is highly irregular. Similarly, pronunciation doesn't match spelling very closely.

At least modern English is somewhat standardized in alphabet, spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, etc. It didn't always use to be like this. Languages do change, for various reasons, but it always makes things incompatible, even if trying to simplify. Some things are best left untouched, but it's hard to stabilize (except via standards or books, which are usually ignored).

Furs wrote:

rugxulo wrote:
AFAIK, some say it sounds more like Italian (also a Romance language like Spanish). But it also has Slavic influence. There were already defined some English subsets (isn't everything in life a subset??) by various groups, but they didn't succeed (for random reasons).
Nah, even the name itself sounds very Spanish-like. That's its downfall. Doesn't matter how much influence it gets from other languages, the impression is what counts.


Esperanto was the nickname of "Doktoro Esperanto" ("one who hopes"), aka L. L. Zamenhof, the creator / initiator of the language. The "fundamento" was considered "untouchable foundation", meant as a stable core to use, at first.

The term "Esperanto" has been jokingly used in Red Dwarf contra the "despair squid" ("It's a blatant clue!"). It's not Spanish, but Spanish derives from Latin, where "In deo speramus" (In God we trust) is often quoted. So yes, it takes some "universal" (very common) Romance terms (and others). Similarly to "optimist" (although that derives from bonus, melior, optimus: good, better, best).

Furs wrote:

A new international language needs to borrow only from English, because English is the current international language. If you want it to replace English (for international communication), that's what you need to do.


Even if you based upon so-called modern "English", it could still be a Romance word, whether Latin or French or other. So it's no different to borrow the word for "despair" from English than from wherever it came from previously or even originally.

The big problem with Latin was that it was hard to decline, conjugate, and thus the grammar was somewhat complex, to say the least. English is not much better here (and even German is considered much harder than most Romance languages).

Furs wrote:

Why a new language then? Because English is peculiar in many cases and kind of hard for some people (well, almost any language has its own issues), and a "designed English" would simplify it. That's all.

And lastly, accents have a different problem than just encoding. They're just stupid in general. It makes things harder to read, and if the pronounciation requires them, it means the language sucks. I mean, yeah, English has its own faults, but English is not a designed language, so it is "excused" here.


English is more reliant on word order, and the spelling and pronunciation are highly irregular. E-o is not reliant on word order, although you still have number (but no alternate gender noun forms, no variations for verb number). The rules are fixed (only 16), and the vocabulary is (mostly) regular (and agglutinative), with pronunciation 100% matching the spelling.

The "Fundamento" is the official way to learn E-o. But I will admit that it's not as simple as advertised, some corner cases, and many people haphazardly use unofficial or even unnecessary vocabulary (so there's still lack of memorization there, unavoidable burden). It takes work to achieve proper fluency, and I'm not sure I 100% have it (although I can read it fairly well, but I'm somewhat rusty these days).

Furs wrote:

We're talking about a designed language here after all (Esperanto), so it's a perfectly valid concern. In short, Esperanto failed because it borrowed from the wrong languages. It should've borrowed the word origins only from English, with grammar perhaps from simple languages.


Like I said, English is Germanic/French based, for the most part. Just simplifying the vocabulary to cognates of English wouldn't really make much difference, it just shifts the bias.

But at least both are based upon existing words. I don't think "gorbalshuft" is a truly better alternative word for "dog", even if it is 100% made-up and removes any potential bias. So instead of accidentally penalizing some, we intentionally penalize everyone equally? How is that "better"??

Ask your friends which of the following they'd like to use full time: Latin, French, English, Esperanto (of course implying lack of previous knowledge). Just from a simplicity standpoint, I think E-o wins, although the cultural depth of the others is indeed much more massive. It's like the difference between C++17 and Oberon-07. I know the former has more modern features, but the latter is much simpler. If you need the added power, go for it. Otherwise, take the simple route.
Post 21 Feb 2018, 23:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Coty



Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 545
Location: ␀
sleepsleep wrote:
she likes, i like, they like, we like, he likes,

why adding s when the word before verb notify us whether it is singular or plural,

and why you need to have different kind of complexities in order to show past, present or future,

i move the stupid stone,
the stupid stone was moved by me,

is, are, was, were, why create complexities,

this, these, stupid stone, stones, are so damn unnecessary,


What I find unessisary are how we use pants in sentences. For example we say “A pair of pants.” But this makes no sense. For starters have you ever bought a pant? What is a pant? A single leg? Why pants? And why do we say “a pair” of them? It’s like a double negative. If I ask for a pair of pants, I am given one pants... But if pant is one leg and pants is two legs... shouldn’t a pair of pants be two sets of pants?
Post 22 Feb 2018, 04:10
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16057
Location: 112 Ocean Avenue, Amityville
A pair of birds is still two birds, not four. When you ask for a pair of something, that kind of means two that are the same as each other I guess. Question

BTW: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pants#Etymology_1
Post 22 Feb 2018, 04:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Coty



Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 545
Location: ␀
OMG, that sent me on a very confusing path.

Shortened from pantaloons (“trousers”) >> Borrowed from French pantalon >> From Italian Pantalone; a character from the commedia dell'arte whose hose were portrayed as being down around his feet.

...What?
Post 22 Feb 2018, 04:50
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16057
Location: 112 Ocean Avenue, Amityville
Some English words have a very rich ancestry. That is partly what makes English very weird.
Post 22 Feb 2018, 04:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1263
@rugxulo: I mean, Esperanto is a designed language, of course it's "simpler" than Spanish. So comparing it with English makes no sense, you should compare Spanish to English. In which case, no, Spanish isn't really any better (in fact it's worse, even has extra pointless crap like inverted quotation marks, see, it has more stuff than English = worse).

Just how English is better than Spanish, so would a designed English be better than designed Spanish (aka Esperanto). That's my point. Not only would it be better, it would also be familiar to people knowing English, which is already the international language. Thus, it would have far more chances of becoming THE international language, while also being simple.

Comparing it with C is a great idea btw. Let's say C versus C++, which is much simpler. C would be the "designed English" language while C++ would be English. (assuming C++ is the de facto international language here)

So if C didn't exist, the best way to make a simple international programming language would be to make a simpler version of C++. (again it's not perfect analogy, but you get it)


It doesn't matter how many fanboys will be mad that their language of choice wasn't picked. C++ was already the international language in this example, they need to deal with it.

Imagine if Java fanboy would claim "let's make a Javasperanto instead grr" and then comes a Python fanboy asking why isn't the international designed language based on Python etc. Only way you can stay sane is borrowing only from the current international language, which is C++.

(NOTE: this is obviously imagined situation, I'm not saying C++ is "the international" language since that makes no sense anyway)
Post 22 Feb 2018, 13:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16057
Location: 112 Ocean Avenue, Amityville
"Javasperanto", haha, I love that word for some reason. Let's do it. Let's make Javasperanto. Just for giggles. Laughing
Post 22 Feb 2018, 14:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Coty



Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 545
Location: ␀
Here is the big question, Is it interpreted, or compiled? If compiled is it ran on native hardware or VM (like Java)?
Post 22 Feb 2018, 16:46
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2309
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
Furs wrote:
@rugxulo: I mean, Esperanto is a designed language, of course it's "simpler" than Spanish. So comparing it with English makes no sense, you should compare Spanish to English. In which case, no, Spanish isn't really any better (in fact it's worse, even has extra pointless crap like inverted quotation marks, see, it has more stuff than English = worse).


Although I don't speak it, I'm not sure I would call Spanish "worse" than English. It's extremely common, even to the point of oversaturation. Most of South America, and a third of North, speak it fluently (although seldomly in U.S. except, relatively, few areas). I'm not directly interested, though (no direct benefit!) but still vaguely sympathetic. That's yet another "lingua franca" (almost, maybe not technically correct, dunno, but it's extremely popular).

Furs wrote:

Just how English is better than Spanish, so would a designed English be better than designed Spanish (aka Esperanto). That's my point. Not only would it be better, it would also be familiar to people knowing English, which is already the international language. Thus, it would have far more chances of becoming THE international language, while also being simple.


I understand your point, but just being familiar to people who already speak English is zero benefit unless someone else is willing to learn it. And why would they bother? Why won't the native English speakers learn the other's language? Why should Japanese learn English? Why can't the English learn (subset of) Japanese? Yes, obviously more speak English "now", but that can change (for various reasons).

My point is that if you can get people to agree to cooperate, then the details probably don't matter. But if they don't want to get along, no amount of bridges will fix that. An empty promise or half-hearted effort doesn't engender goodwill.

I do agree that English is not "bad" although it is indeed biased. But avoiding all bias and just punishing everyone, as I've already mentioned, is ludicrous.

Furs wrote:

Comparing it with C is a great idea btw. Let's say C versus C++, which is much simpler. C would be the "designed English" language while C++ would be English. (assuming C++ is the de facto international language here)

So if C didn't exist, the best way to make a simple international programming language would be to make a simpler version of C++. (again it's not perfect analogy, but you get it)


It doesn't matter how many fanboys will be mad that their language of choice wasn't picked. C++ was already the international language in this example, they need to deal with it.

Imagine if Java fanboy would claim "let's make a Javasperanto instead grr" and then comes a Python fanboy asking why isn't the international designed language based on Python etc. Only way you can stay sane is borrowing only from the current international language, which is C++.

(NOTE: this is obviously imagined situation, I'm not saying C++ is "the international" language since that makes no sense anyway)


Well, standards do "usually" refer to existing practice. So what was once implementation-specific or third-party feature is now standardized. So unofficial words can eventually be standardized. (I can't think of any good examples, but "frenemy" or "googling" comes to mind.)

Anyways, yes, you have a point, and I mostly agree. But I don't agree that English is the "only" (or best) place to start. But indeed, you could define a subset of English (vocabulary, grammar) for official use.

A quick search of Wikipedia and Google shows many interesting things:

Post 22 Feb 2018, 21:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2309
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
Ada (programming language) - Wikipedia wrote:

In the 1970s, the US Department of Defense (DoD) was concerned by the number of different programming languages being used for its embedded computer system projects, many of which were obsolete or hardware-dependent, and none of which supported safe modular programming. In 1975, a working group, the High Order Language Working Group (HOLWG), was formed with the intent to reduce this number by finding or creating a programming language generally suitable for the department's and the UK Ministry of Defence requirements. After many iterations beginning with an original Straw man proposal the eventual programming language was named Ada. The total number of high-level programming languages in use for such projects fell from over 450 in 1983 to 37 by 1996.

In 1991, the US Department of Defense began to require the use of Ada (the Ada mandate) for all software, though exceptions to this rule were often granted. The Department of Defense Ada mandate was effectively removed in 1997, as the DoD began to embrace COTS [commercial off-the-shelf] technology.
Post 22 Feb 2018, 21:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1263
rugxulo wrote:
Although I don't speak it, I'm not sure I would call Spanish "worse" than English. It's extremely common, even to the point of oversaturation. Most of South America, and a third of North, speak it fluently (although seldomly in U.S. except, relatively, few areas). I'm not directly interested, though (no direct benefit!) but still vaguely sympathetic. That's yet another "lingua franca" (almost, maybe not technically correct, dunno, but it's extremely popular).
Doesn't matter how popular it is. People are not equal in relevance.

Most of South America is irrelevant in world affairs, with few exceptions. Mexico is probably even more irrelevant.

I mean, look at China. It's a solid country and very relevant, but even chinese is not a very relevant language in world affairs, even though it's "popular" only because there's too many chinese. Because most of them are irrelevant or (were) from the country side.

I'm stating these as statistical facts. I don't care about sugarcoating words and claiming that everyone has equal influence when it's obviously not the case. I mean, in terms of Spanish, even Spain itself is mostly irrelevant compared to the big boys even in Europe.

And anyway it is worse and popularity has nothing to do with it, I never stated anything about popularity. English being the international language has nothing to do with popularity.

Spanish has more stuff, inverted crap (question marks or exclamation marks even), accents, etc. It doesn't matter how many people use something, it's not going to automatically make it superior, you need to look at other things. (I'm excluding grammar and such because, well, those can be simplified in a new language)

rugxulo wrote:
I understand your point, but just being familiar to people who already speak English is zero benefit unless someone else is willing to learn it. And why would they bother? Why won't the native English speakers learn the other's language? Why should Japanese learn English? Why can't the English learn (subset of) Japanese? Yes, obviously more speak English "now", but that can change (for various reasons).
Because English is the international language and it's better in many technical aspects (no accents, encoding, no pointless fluff like Spanish, etc).

I'm not interested in "getting people to cooperate" I'm just stating my opinions. Getting people to cooperate involves emotional bullshit I couldn't care less about. I will never succumb to emotional arguments or resort to them so they're not my cup of tea.

In short words: most languages are just bad. English may not be perfect but it's way less bad than others, plus it's already the international language.
Post 23 Feb 2018, 14:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2309
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
I was not trying to imply that emotions are paramount, only focusing mostly on technical requirements. It's extra effort to learn yet another, incompatible language. And that extra effort shouldn't be forced on smaller groups due to hubris (or any other reason, even technical: peaceful cooperation requires voluntary agreement).

A language is just a tool for communication. But if you ignore popularity and even technical metrics (simplicity?), what is the difference? Latin was widely written for many years, so unless you consider English simpler (which it probably is, barely), there's no reason to switch, especially if you discount popularity. Note here that I consider written works more important than just informal dialogue.

The Latin Bible, aka Vulgate, roughly means vulgar/common/vernacular/popular although most official modern editions are retranslations from the original languages (Hebrew and Greek, mostly). The Catholic Church itself has mostly switched away from Latin since Vatican II back in the '60s, so most communities use their own local languages (not always English, not always French, not always Esperanto). There is IKUE, but I'm not very familiar with it (locally or otherwise). I do have an E-o Bible, but it's somewhat unofficial (no imprimatur ... although has the Deuterocanonical books). AFAIK, Zamenhof originally translated the Tanakh himself! Note that there was heavy disagreement regarding the newly-founded Church of England (Anglican) and its King James Bible (which was intentionally not 100% accurate to the Vulgate in meaning, and modern editions omit some books).

Not sure about Judaism. There is some heavy focus on Hebrew (esp. in Israel), but I'm not sure how much Yiddish (Germanic, like English) is still widely spoken. And there are other languages used by them (obviously English in the U.S., which carries a sizeable population).

I really am not trying to bring up religion here! But just as an example, one Croatian saint (beatified) is Ivan Merz. His website has (partial) translations in the following languages: French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Filipino, Polish, Hungarian, and Esperanto. (The main page is seemingly in Croatian, no huge surprise.)
Post 25 Feb 2018, 00:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2309
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
Wikipedia wrote:

In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct and separate piece of software. The term often implies not merely a development branch, but also a split in the developer community, a form of schism.


Jargon File? wrote:

Forking is considered a Bad Thing—not merely because it implies a lot of wasted effort in the future, but because forks tend to be accompanied by a great deal of strife and acrimony between the successor groups over issues of legitimacy, succession, and design direction. There is serious social pressure against forking.


Okay, obviously "schism" has a bad connotation. I honestly didn't know "fork" was (usually) anywhere near as contentious. But it is similar. So no, we don't need 15 incompatible standards covering the same ground, nor 15 languages, etc. But it's unavoidable, nobody can agree. xkcd

Why have Spanish, Catalan, French, Italian, Romanian?? Why not just one? Because who gets to decide? Should we just all go back to using Latin? It's pretty obvious that very few would prefer Latin over modern derivatives.
Post 25 Feb 2018, 00:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2309
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
(IIRC, this is from partial memory ....)

Switzerland has four official languages (German, French, Italian, Romansh). Even the Philippines has several other languages. Actually, Switzerland seems to have "standard" German and also their own dialect, which apparently is so different that other German speakers need subtitles to understand it! Canada also speaks French due to Quebec. Even Spain has several languages (Catalan, Basque/Euskara), so that's sometimes contentious, too. Even U.K. has several languages (Irish/Gaeilge, Scottish/Gaidhlig, Welsh/Cymraeg), IIRC, so even there it's not "English only".

EDIT: Most Scandinavian languages are Germanic (e.g. Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic) except Finnish. Though Finnish is supposedly related to Estonian (and, distantly, Hungarian).
Post 25 Feb 2018, 00:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16057
Location: 112 Ocean Avenue, Amityville
I think assembly language is the best! Laughing
Post 25 Feb 2018, 00:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2309
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
www.esperanto.de (via Google Translate) wrote:

Esperanto und Englisch

English is suitable for many purposes. It's nice to be able to communicate with people in English. However, in some areas Esperanto has advantages that English can never catch up with. On the one hand, this is easy learning. Since Esperanto is a planned language, it is much easier to learn than English. Students need much less time and much faster learning, with significantly less effort. On the other hand, Esperanto is a language that does not give any native speaker an unassailable advantage, as is the case with English.

Despite ten years of teaching English and university courses, only very few are able to reach a level that is even close to that of a native speaker in terms of expressiveness, idiomatics and grammatical correctness. What language students learn in schools has always been a question of world economic domination of countries. While it used to be Latin, French and Russian, today it is English. In 50 years, perhaps Chinese takes on this role.
Post 25 Feb 2018, 03:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1263
rugxulo wrote:
Since Esperanto is a planned language, it is much easier to learn than English.
Make a planned English then. Best of both worlds, right?

I know the creator of Esperanto is probably butthurt it wasn't Spanish who ended up the international language. Rolling Eyes


Last edited by Furs on 25 Feb 2018, 13:18; edited 1 time in total
Post 25 Feb 2018, 13:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16057
Location: 112 Ocean Avenue, Amityville
Furs wrote:
Make a planned English then. Best of both worlds, right?
WP has a simple English variant: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

I know that "simple" isn't exactly the same thing as "planned", but one could start from there and plan things accordingly.
Post 25 Feb 2018, 13:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1263
BTW I forgot to say that chinese will not be the international language in 50 years (and if it will be, it will be a sad day for mankind). Look at the horrendous characters and how difficult they are to type. (we might not use keyboards then, but I'm guessing in 50 years Google translations will be perfect, so English will remain anyway, no need to switch etc)
Post 25 Feb 2018, 13:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16057
Location: 112 Ocean Avenue, Amityville
Furs wrote:
BTW I forgot to say that chinese will not be the international language in 50 years (and if it will be, it will be a sad day for mankind). Look at the horrendous characters and how difficult they are to type.
Chinese has Pinyin writing also. You are not locked into representing the characters/words/phonemes in only one way. The language and its representation are not exclusively intertwined.

ETA: Thai spoken language is similar to Cantonese in many respects, but the written language is a lot easier to learn, and it is a lot more consistent than the standard English alphabet.
Post 25 Feb 2018, 13:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2018, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.