Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpdslab!hpiacla!jim
From: jim@hpiacla.HP.COM (Jim Rogers)
Newsgroups: comp.std.internat
Subject: Re: Change the software or the alphabet?
Message-ID: <190001@hpiacla.HP.COM>
Date: Fri, 23-Oct-87 11:43:55 EST
Article-I.D.: hpiacla.190001
Posted: Fri Oct 23 11:43:55 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Oct-87 03:04:14 EST
References: <1446@haddock.ISC.COM>
Organization: Hewlett Packard
Lines: 48

The concept that "natural languages" are tools has merit.  The concept that
these languages should be standardized to simplify the life of computer
programmers is ludicrous.

Each local language has local customs, history, and even thought patterns
deeply imbeded in its fabric.  Every time a local language replaced by
another language an irreplacable piece of human creativity and knowledge
is lost.  Language is more than just the way governments control their
populace.  Language is the fundamental basis for all human communication.

The basenote made reference to the "inertia" invloved in scrapping all 
"natural languages" in favor of a single standard language.  I say that
this is not only impractical but also undesirable.  Would we re-write all
literature for the simple purpose of making life easier for computer
programmers?  When this is done how many different versions of the
"natural language" parsing tools would be built?  I would guess there
would be atleast one for every version of every computer language in
use now or in the future.

Why not first invent a standardized computer environment which is used by
all hardware.  This would include operating systems, file systems,
networking, and, of course, computer languages.  After all, only a small
percentage of the residents of this planet are computer programmers.  It
should be musch easier to create a standard acceptable to the smaller
group than to create one acceptable to the general population of the
planet.

The answer to that question is obvious.

There are many different computer environments for many reasons.  Most
of those reasons reduce to the fact that a given computer environment
has been designed and developed to meet a specific set of needs.  I
have not yet met the genius who has designed a computer environment which
meets all the critical needs of all users.

Am I saying that standards are impossible?  No.  I am saying that there
are (and must be) a finite set (containing more than one member) of 
standards which will be developed to meet the known needs of the
computing community.  New research and design in areas not covered by
standards, or in methods not accepted by standards will (and must)
continue.  As capabilities, expectations, and needs change the standards
must change.

The only constant is change, and even that happens at varying rates.



Jim Rogers