>Doesn't that depend on how one decides to "score" a language?
Not as much, because not all ways of scoring a language are as good either, and in the ways of scoring that matter, English is better than Esperanto.
Not as much, because not all ways of scoring a language are as good either, and in the ways of scoring that matter, English is better than Esperanto.
I feel you understand the author' point but still disagree for some reason.
I'll put the metaphor back to programming. There's programming for quality and programming for financial gain. If your metrics are the latter, then Javascript is the best language. But many people here do think as engineers, and thus there are other qualities that "are not as good" ways to score a language but maximize the ability to deliver a stable product.
You've never dealt with Esperantists, I can tell.
also the irregularities in english developed over centuries by contact with other languages in an environment that lacked the normative influence of globalization and modern communication tools.
at the time english was also not the defacto language for international communication that it is today. this status is responsible for efforts such as a wikipedia in basic english that makes information easier to approach by non-native speakers.
as esperanto was expressly created with the goal of being an international language, any attempts to introduce irregularities will meet a lot more resistance and therefore development of an irregular grammar is unlikely to happen.
That's the problem. It's design by commitee instead of evolutionary organic design. It's how cyborgs think people oughta talk.