2 ms·
These are human languages created and used by humans, they weren't planned, they just happened. They get used independently with loosely applied rules. I'm not
by bottled_poe 12y ago
These are human languages created and used by humans, they weren't planned, they just happened. They get used independently with loosely applied rules. I'm not really sure what the point of this article was. Was it to state that human language != programming language? Thanks for the revelation. I will surely stay posted to receive further brain-burstingly deep insights.
- Trufa 12y agoI think the point was just to show all the complications that can appear representing human language for a computer to understand. I don't think the author actually thinks that language suck, though I can't speak for him, he seems to be too knowledgeable on languages for not actually appreciating them.
- muyuu 12y agoYep, languages are not made to be easily encoded in binary form. Also, symbol systems are just tiny bits of what a human language really is. In regards to grammar/semantics and phonetics for example, English is painfully loose to deal with in a programmatic way. That's just the way things are. That said, I believe Unicode's approach to inclusion of new characters in the set is wrong. It shouldn't be so dynamic. Unicode needs a smaller base, a standard extension system and standard extensions (in a standard extension format, reviewed in long but predictable timeframes, lets say every 10 or 20 years). The current system is a pain.