4 ms·

> Itanium was better than AMD64, No, AMD64 is far superior, Itanium's benefits never materialized. Any BOTH offer backwards compatibility, anyhow. > DVORAK i

> Itanium was better than AMD64, No, AMD64 is far superior, Itanium's benefits never materialized. Any BOTH offer backwards compatibility, anyhow. > DVORAK is better than QWERTY, Not by enough to matter except in extreme circumstances. I say this as a Dvorak typist. > I'm sure Esperanto is lightyears ahead of the monstrosity that is English. It's not. It is needlessly complicated. "Basic," "Simple," or "Technical" English (which came along a few years after Esperanto) is far simpler and quicker to learn. > But backwards compatibility always wins, because it fits what the world was already designed around. Besides all the above being incorrect, some examples like the rise of ARM serves as a count-point.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
ARM enabled a class of devices that x86 outright didn't support at the time (and largely still does not). In my eyes, that's the exception to the rule: when something is not merely incrementally better, but actually a difference in kind. That's what it takes to supersede backwards compatibility. I said in my last post that I expect h.264 to become the MP3 of video files—but if that doesn't happen, I suspect it will be due to the format's lack of HDR support. That's also a difference in kind—something every consumer will immediately notice, if high quality HDR displays become common in the future.
- axiolite 4y ago
  > ARM enabled a class of devices that x86 outright didn't support at the time (and largely still does not). What time, and which class of devices? Certainly it's true of very low-power embedded devices, but those aren't of particular interest... Embedded devices can easily switch between architectures without end users even noticing. If we are referring to ARM being used for more computationally intensive devices... Like smart phones, tablets, and servers, then x86 has always had competitive options. The earliest couple Nokia Communicators were x86 based, not ARM. Years before they switched to ARM, the National Semiconductor (later AMD) Geode processors debuted and were surely competitive with ARM, having power ratings as low as 0.7watt. Blackberry phones came years later, and iPhone and Android devices much later yet. The OLPC project using Geode CPUs on their XO-1 certainly proves their viability.
mariusor 4y ago
> It's not. It is needlessly complicated. "Basic," "Simple," or "Technical" English (which came along a few years after Esperanto) is far simpler and quicker to learn. I'm sure it's easy to say that when you are already an English speaker. I personally doubt it very much. Is there some data maybe that supports this point of view?
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  As a non-native speaker, I think it's "easier" in the sense that many non-native speakers already tend to have some exposition to English through music, films, and other media. For Esperanto, this exposition is basically 0 unless you're a geek and watched that William Shatner Esperanto film. The amount of exposition varies based on a number of factors, but anything is better than nothing.
  - mariusor 4y ago
    I see, that makes perfect sense. But I wouldn't call the language itself being "easier" but rather the process of learning it. However I don't think parent meant it like that.
- axiolite 4y ago
  > I personally doubt it very much. It might help if you specified exactly what it is you doubt... It's a simple fact that Basic English has a shorter wordlist than Esperanto, simple rules, and being based on English it omits things like gender for objects. While perhaps exaggerated, the claim was: "it would take seven years to learn English, seven months for Esperanto, and seven weeks for Basic English." Some references to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Criticism https://englishharmony.com/english-is-easy/ https://englishharmony.com/english-is-easy/ https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Basic_English https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Basic_Englis...
  - mariusor 4y ago
    The first doubt was around the fact that a language with the pronounciation background coming out of the English language will be "easier" to learn than a strictly phonetic one. Just looking over the list of words in your last link, I'm pretty sure that any number of them would trip someone that is a blank slate. For example: "who", "wheel" and "humour" are vastly inconsistent with regards to how they sound. Having to learn these idiosyncrasies, even for 900 words, would be - in my opinion - more difficult than the basic rules of Esperanto (and Ido, which seems even simpler). I would imagine that coupled with a phonetic transliteration of the common sounds it would be easier but then the language would probably become a different thing all together. I hope that clarifies a bit.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

ARM enabled a class of devices that x86 outright didn't support at the time (and largely still does not). In my eyes, that's the exception to the rule: when something is not merely incrementally better, but actually a difference in kind. That's what it takes to supersede backwards compatibility. I said in my last post that I expect h.264 to become the MP3 of video files—but if that doesn't happen, I suspect it will be due to the format's lack of HDR support. That's also a difference in kind—something every consumer will immediately notice, if high quality HDR displays become common in the future.

axiolite 4y ago
> ARM enabled a class of devices that x86 outright didn't support at the time (and largely still does not). What time, and which class of devices? Certainly it's true of very low-power embedded devices, but those aren't of particular interest... Embedded devices can easily switch between architectures without end users even noticing. If we are referring to ARM being used for more computationally intensive devices... Like smart phones, tablets, and servers, then x86 has always had competitive options. The earliest couple Nokia Communicators were x86 based, not ARM. Years before they switched to ARM, the National Semiconductor (later AMD) Geode processors debuted and were surely competitive with ARM, having power ratings as low as 0.7watt. Blackberry phones came years later, and iPhone and Android devices much later yet. The OLPC project using Geode CPUs on their XO-1 certainly proves their viability.

mariusor 4y ago

> It's not. It is needlessly complicated. "Basic," "Simple," or "Technical" English (which came along a few years after Esperanto) is far simpler and quicker to learn. I'm sure it's easy to say that when you are already an English speaker. I personally doubt it very much. Is there some data maybe that supports this point of view?

Beltalowda 4y ago
As a non-native speaker, I think it's "easier" in the sense that many non-native speakers already tend to have some exposition to English through music, films, and other media. For Esperanto, this exposition is basically 0 unless you're a geek and watched that William Shatner Esperanto film. The amount of exposition varies based on a number of factors, but anything is better than nothing.
- mariusor 4y ago
  I see, that makes perfect sense. But I wouldn't call the language itself being "easier" but rather the process of learning it. However I don't think parent meant it like that.
axiolite 4y ago
> I personally doubt it very much. It might help if you specified exactly what it is you doubt... It's a simple fact that Basic English has a shorter wordlist than Esperanto, simple rules, and being based on English it omits things like gender for objects. While perhaps exaggerated, the claim was: "it would take seven years to learn English, seven months for Esperanto, and seven weeks for Basic English." Some references to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Criticism https://englishharmony.com/english-is-easy/ https://englishharmony.com/english-is-easy/ https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Basic_English https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Basic_Englis...
- mariusor 4y ago
  The first doubt was around the fact that a language with the pronounciation background coming out of the English language will be "easier" to learn than a strictly phonetic one. Just looking over the list of words in your last link, I'm pretty sure that any number of them would trip someone that is a blank slate. For example: "who", "wheel" and "humour" are vastly inconsistent with regards to how they sound. Having to learn these idiosyncrasies, even for 900 words, would be - in my opinion - more difficult than the basic rules of Esperanto (and Ido, which seems even simpler). I would imagine that coupled with a phonetic transliteration of the common sounds it would be easier but then the language would probably become a different thing all together. I hope that clarifies a bit.