http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=243921


in reply to Re: Re: is XML too hard? esperanto
in thread is XML too hard?

And German, English, several easter European languages and a bad idea, IHMO.

It's like saying: Hey lets make a language out of Ruby, Python, Awk, Perl3, Perl4 and a little bit Perl5, throw in a good measure of BASIC, a bit Lisp, stir and puke. Oh you don't like it? Well, it's not going to change, you know. That's that. And good riddance.

janx

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re:^3: is XML too hard? esperanto
by zby (Vicar) on Mar 18, 2003 at 09:57 UTC
    How can you create an artificial language not basing it on existing languages? You mean you would like something entirely new? Look how Perl is build - you have a bit of shell, a bit of C, a bit of awk and many other languages.
[reply]
      That's all to well. Of course does artifcial mean to take something existing (conciously or unconciously).

      But, IMHO there's more to a succesfull language/system than the sum of the parts.
      Almost every language has its strong points which others lack. What I mean is that you don't necessarily get a better language by combining the strong points.

      One major success factor is the evolution of a language. It has to adapt to its users - and Esperanto IMHO doesn't do that.
      I'm comfortable using English as the lingua franca in the technical world. I most often prefer it to my mother tongue German for clarity and simplicity.
      However I'm also aware that English has its roots (at least partly) in old germannic languages (Disclaimer: I'm no expert here - Input appreciated.) and thus is also based on other languages.

      Well, from this point on I would repeat myself, as I just became aware of, but you get my point ;-)

      janx

[reply]

In Section Meditations