4 ms·
On one hand, I realize it's totally meant tongue-in-cheek. So I don't want to pick on the article, because it's useful and funny. On the other hand, I've been
by archagon 12y ago
On one hand, I realize it's totally meant tongue-in-cheek. So I don't want to pick on the article, because it's useful and funny.
On the other hand, I've been seeing this attitude in regards to other topics lately. "Why can't humans be perfect... like this machine?" Well, guess what, bub. We came first, and this stupid computer had better get used to it. Me, I like my clumsy, imperfect analog world.
- cbd1984 12y ago"That's nice. I'll deal with it when you make it economically worthwhile for me to deal with it. Until then, enjoy your fixed-format fields that truncate your name." Sincerely, Christophe
- dotfish 12y agoReally? It just sounds condescending and arrogant in a very Anglo-centric way even if I try to read the satire between the lines. If that was the intention, the author isn't very good at it.
- robzyb 12y agoThe author is someone who is trying to apply a simple and consistent set of rules to non-perfect systems. The author of course gets 'angry' with the super-non-perfect systems. Those languages are very difficult to deal with, and he is expressing his frustration. That doesn't mean he's being condescending nor arrogant.
- ekianjo 12y agoYou should replace "non-perfect" with "non-English" in your comment. That would fit just as well.
- robzyb 12y agoI disagree. It seems to me like english is "more perfect" if you are trying to build a straightforward model of a language like a software developer might. The article suggests that there are some convoluted rules in other languages which make it much more difficult to model the language.
- TillE 12y agoYeah, I've seen unironic suggestions on HN that languages should change to better accommodate computer processing. Besides the obvious absurdity, that completely ignores the problem of handling the huge amount of existing text.