Hacker News Reader

Comment by verisimilitudes | Hacker News Reader

I'm aware of the Scheme chips. I chose machine language because it doesn't need many names for code, and thus was suitable as a starting point for my work on textless programming.

I've not reached out to John Cowan but think I might, despite my dislike of Unicode. I'll also look into this Ronin Institute. I'll keep the book in mind. I appreciate the help.

As I explain in the last linked article, a lot of these artificial languages retard language work, rather than help it. I expect to target real languages with most of my time now.

Think of Elision like MIDI, but for human language. Text is stored uniformly as indices into a dictionary, rather than as a sequence of characters with interspersed control codes.

View on HN

Thank you for a civil, intelligent conversation.

I had never thought about the "asymmetry" of putting control codes with the character codes in ASCII--it does seem illogical now that you point it out. :) Languages like Ido aren't completely "artificial", and I certainly think Couturat didn't fail in some sense--my irrational issue with Ido, despite its numerous strengths, is that words with the same part of speech end in the same letter(s), making it monotonous. But as my wife pointed out, that regularity makes it easier for computers to parse.

It's no issue.

> I had never thought about the "asymmetry" of putting control codes with the character codes in ASCII--it does seem illogical now that you point it out.

Yes, this is why I call them insidious.

The issue with constructed languages is that they simply don't have the beauty of something such as Latin, and never can, due to their very nature.

Anyway, feel free to send me an e-mail at some point, if we're to continue our discussion at some later time.

> my irrational issue with Ido, despite its numerous strengths, is that words with the same part of speech end in the same letter(s), making it monotonous. But as my wife pointed out, that regularity makes it easier for computers to parse.

For people too. And isn't that exactly how many natural languages work? Verbs -- someone doeS something -- all end with an 's'[1] in English: He/she/it writes, reads, encodes, builds, blathers, creates, excels, triumphs, loses, sucks...

___

[1]: Admittedly only in the present tense third-person singular, but that's something. Arguably, more of that would make the language easier to parse and learn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com