Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 22:24:04 -0800 (PST)
From: sukender1@gmail.com
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <052e5739-bb5f-4c9d-b2c0-c58fcac37478@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>,<78156dc5-1fb3-4e9d-992c-a8f30facc4fd@googlegroups.com>
 <SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1172_1430734413.1510122244913"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.3
X-Spam_score_int: -12
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_1172_1430734413.1510122244913
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1173_1164614413.1510122244913"

------=_Part_1173_1164614413.1510122244913
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

@timoteios: I would love backward-compatibility too, and I guess it would=
=20
be good to TRY to do so. Unfortunately, I must slightly disagree with you:=
=20
this is not 100% possible. Well I'm also a C++ developer, and even in that=
=20
language the backward-compatibility is not 100%. Remember the old "auto"=20
keyword in "C"? Well, its definition and behavior changed for C++2011! And=
=20
generally speaking, you cannot just take an old piece of code and expect it=
=20
would 100% work with the latest tools. I tried it! It may work sometimes,=
=20
but this is not *desirable*. Indeed, developers learned a lot about what to=
 *NOT=20
DO* with old language, and created guidelines to move away from bad=20
practices. And this takes time! This is the reason why "CPP Core=20
Guidelines" exist... So yes, as you say, we *should try* to have linear=20
history, backward-compatibility, and such. But that's a non-reachable=20
target, IMO.

However, having a committee reviewing the "standard" of the language (as=20
ISO for C++), is just what sounds good to me. Do you think ISO could be the=
=20
organization to deal with Lojban? :-)

Finally, we should be careful about moving forward to new versions. C++=20
adopted a 3-years period. Lojban initially adopted 5-years. I feel it is=20
reasonable (even if I tend to use always the latest/beta software for my=20
personal usage!). This leaves time for people to get hands on the new=20
things. And remember there are millions of people knowing C++, and maybe=20
only a few thousands for Lojban... Evolution can't use the same frequency.

Don't you think?

la .sykyndyr.


Le mardi 7 novembre 2017 14:49:25 UTC+1, Timothy Lawrence a =C3=A9crit :
>
> *"You can learn the language described here with assurance that it will=
=20
> not be subject to further fiddling by language-meisters."*
> - Complete Lojban Language http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/=20
>
> I only use CLL Lojban. I believe that an unambiguous language needs to=20
> have a central, singular version to stay unambiguous.
>
> I don't know much about the history of OpenGL but it, from a surface=20
> level, seems similar to the history of C++, which I am familiar with.
> By and large, new features are added to the C++ language, but every=20
> version is backwards-compatible=20
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_compatibility> with older=20
> versions (and almost entirely compatible with its predecessor, C).
> An older compiler might choke on new language features, but a new compile=
r=20
> will always work with old code.
>
> Compiler vendors may introduce their own language features as forks (and=
=20
> they are not considered standard C++), but there is always a=20
> standard/"strict" mode that can be enabled. Most good features that=20
> compilers introduce have been added to the official version, perhaps=20
> changed in a way to integrate them better.
>
> This is what I think Lojban should be like.
>
> *I want all new / official Lojban versions to be CLL-compatible.*
>
>
>
> *> "jbo_*" (imagine "jbo_FR", "jbo_EN", "jbo_CA"...),*
>
> I do not want there to be "jbo_A", "jbo_B", "jbo_C"... that are all=20
> incompatible.
>
> I do want "jbo_1", "jbo_2", "jbo_3"..., where it's a sequential chronolog=
y=20
> and each is a more improved (but backwards-compatible) version.
>
> A tool could explicitly support "jbo_2" and it would implicitly support=
=20
> "jbo_1". If a tool just says it supports "jbo", it would be presumed to=
=20
> support the latest.
>
>
>
> *> But this group ("committee"?) should accept the fact that language wil=
l=20
> evolve, whether they like it or not.*
>
> I hope that this means that they accept the language can change, by=20
> backwards-compatible design and *not* evolution via drift.
>
> C++ does not at all "evolve" like a natural language and I don't think=20
> Lojban should, either. Because C++ has maintained a centralised standard=
=20
> and continued to update, I think it possible for Lojban to do so.
>
>
>
> *> What is clear, however, is that people don't want to use CLL Lojban=20
> (despite the fact that it is still the most thoroughly documented version=
).*
>
> I do. I think most people want to use the latest version of something. I=
=20
> see the CLL Lojban as the latest version, for the backwards-compatibility=
=20
> reasons mentioned above.
>
> I have seen CLL-incompatible versions advertised on the website and new=
=20
> learners are likely to intuit that it's intrinsically better to choose th=
e=20
> "latest version", not knowing that learning the modern versions entails=
=20
> embracing a schism.
>
> *> To be frank, I feel a bit betrayed. I feel bad because my hope was tha=
t=20
> Lojban was more that just an experiment. Someone, please, prove me it is.=
..*
>
> This is so true for me, and one of the reasons that I became more quiet=
=20
> (although I am writing an unannounced novel that contains CLL Lojban).
>
> *> I just don't want to spend time learning things if they would be throw=
n=20
> away in a few months/years*
>
> *> sykynder: You mention re-integrating forks back into the core language=
.=20
> How do you change something and then make it the same as it was before?*
>
> I believe all official Lojban changes must be backwards-compatible for=20
> Lojban to succeed in its goal of being unambiguous (let alone succeed in=
=20
> other ways, such as adoption).
>
>
>
> *> E.g. learning a revised meaning {lo} is no big deal.*
>
> It's not just about learning, it's about effort invested in writing tools=
,=20
> texts, chatbots and parsers (et cetera).
> It's about breaking that promise in the CLL that the language will not be=
=20
> subject to further fiddling.
>
> Introducing changes that break Lojban compatibility will
> - waste invested time in the older version
> - waste invested money in buying the older CLL (etc)
> - alienate those who wasted their time/money
> - introduce more ambiguity (The Lojban version changes the meaning!!)
>
> (Why did CLL-{le} become modern-{lo} and the modern-{le} get introduced,=
=20
> instead of just introducing the new {lo} to mean what modern-{le} means a=
nd=20
> keeping CLL-{le} as the default?)
>
> As learning a revised meaning is no big deal, simply redoing these change=
s=20
> to be compatible with CLL Lojban should be no big deal ;)
>
>
>
> *"Lojban does not yet have nearly the vocabulary it needs to be a fully=
=20
> usable language of the modern world"*
> - Complete Lojban Language http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/=20
>
> If we can agree to move forward using CLL Lojban and only make=20
> backwards-compatible changes, then I can personally say I'll be happy to=
=20
> resume devoting time, energy and money into Lojban. Lojban's usefulness a=
s=20
> an unambiguous language is so important to me.
>
> It doesn't have to be "perfect" or "better", it just has to be unambiguou=
s=20
> and complete.
>
>
> I want to help complete Lojban, and any processes of governance=20
> surrounding it, to reunite it.
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> mi'e la timoteios.
>
>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

------=_Part_1173_1164614413.1510122244913
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>@timoteios: I would love backward-compatibility too, =
and I guess it would be good to TRY to do so. Unfortunately, I must slightl=
y disagree with you: this is not 100% possible. Well I&#39;m also a C++ dev=
eloper, and even in that language the backward-compatibility is not 100%. R=
emember the old &quot;auto&quot; keyword in &quot;C&quot;? Well, its defini=
tion and behavior changed for C++2011! And generally speaking, you cannot j=
ust take an old piece of code and expect it would 100% work with the latest=
 tools. I tried it! It may work sometimes, but this is not <u><b>desirable<=
/b></u>. Indeed, developers learned a lot about what to <b>NOT DO</b> with =
old language, and created guidelines to move away from bad practices. And t=
his takes time! This is the reason why &quot;CPP Core Guidelines&quot; exis=
t... So yes, as you say, we <b>should try</b> to have linear history, backw=
ard-compatibility, and such. But that&#39;s a non-reachable target, IMO.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>However, having a committee reviewing the &quot;stan=
dard&quot; of the language (as ISO for C++), is just what sounds good to me=
. Do you think ISO could be the organization to deal with Lojban? :-)</div>=
<div><br></div><div>Finally, we should be careful about moving forward to n=
ew versions. C++ adopted a 3-years period. Lojban initially adopted 5-years=
. I feel it is reasonable (even if I tend to use always the latest/beta sof=
tware for my personal usage!). This leaves time for people to get hands on =
the new things. And remember there are millions of people knowing C++, and =
maybe only a few thousands for Lojban... Evolution can&#39;t use the same f=
requency.</div><div><br></div><div>Don&#39;t you think?</div><div><br></div=
><div>la .sykyndyr.</div><div><br></div><br>Le mardi 7 novembre 2017 14:49:=
25 UTC+1, Timothy Lawrence a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left: 1ex;">


<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-size:10pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sa=
ns-serif" dir=3D"ltr">
<div><i>&quot;You can learn the language described here with assurance that=
 it will not be subject to further fiddling by language-meisters.&quot;</i>=
<br>
- Complete Lojban Language <a href=3D"http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/" tar=
get=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http://www.=
google.com/url?q\x3dhttp%3A%2F%2Flojban.github.io%2Fcll%2F1%2F2%2F\x26sa\x3=
dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNG2h9GHw8DBpIpiUFxJt2jIr8e2tw&#39;;return tr=
ue;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttp%3A%2F%=
2Flojban.github.io%2Fcll%2F1%2F2%2F\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjC=
NG2h9GHw8DBpIpiUFxJt2jIr8e2tw&#39;;return true;">
http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/<wbr>2/</a> <br>
<br>
I only use CLL Lojban. I believe that an unambiguous language needs to have=
 a central, singular version to stay unambiguous.<br>
<br>
I don&#39;t know much about the history of OpenGL but it, from a surface le=
vel, seems similar to the history of C++, which I am familiar with.<br>
By and large, new features are added to the C++ language, but every version=
 is <a href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_compatibility" target=
=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D&#39;https://www.go=
ogle.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBackward_compatib=
ility\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNG_wypMpSFQ0diCTCjN4LZWP5u6Sw&=
#39;;return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D&#39;https://www.google.com/url?q=
\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBackward_compatibility\x26sa\x3=
dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNG_wypMpSFQ0diCTCjN4LZWP5u6Sw&#39;;return tr=
ue;">
backwards-compatible</a> with older versions (and almost entirely compatibl=
e with its predecessor, C).<br>
An older compiler might choke on new language features, but a new compiler =
will always work with old code.<br>
<br>
Compiler vendors may introduce their own language features as forks (and th=
ey are not considered standard C++), but there is always a standard/&quot;s=
trict&quot; mode that can be enabled. Most good features that compilers int=
roduce have been added to the official version,
 perhaps changed in a way to integrate them better.<br>
<br>
This is what I think Lojban should be like.<br>
<br>
<u>I want all new / official Lojban versions to be CLL-compatible.</u><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">&quot;jbo_*&quot; (imagine &=
quot;jbo_FR&quot;, &quot;jbo_EN&quot;, &quot;jbo_CA&quot;...),</span></b><b=
r>
<br>
I do not want there to be &quot;jbo_A&quot;, &quot;jbo_B&quot;, &quot;jbo_C=
&quot;... that are all incompatible.<br>
<br>
I do want &quot;jbo_1&quot;, &quot;jbo_2&quot;, &quot;jbo_3&quot;..., where=
 it&#39;s a sequential chronology and each is a more improved (but backward=
s-compatible) version.<br>
<br>
A tool could explicitly support &quot;jbo_2&quot; and it would implicitly s=
upport &quot;jbo_1&quot;. If a tool just says it supports &quot;jbo&quot;, =
it would be presumed to support the latest.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">But this group (&quot;commit=
tee&quot;?) should accept the fact that language will evolve, whether they =
like it or not.</span></b><br>
<br>
I hope that this means that they accept the language can change, by backwar=
ds-compatible design and
<i>not</i> evolution via drift.<br>
<br>
C++ does not at all &quot;evolve&quot; like a natural language and I don=
9;t think Lojban should, either. Because C++ has maintained a centralised s=
tandard and continued to update, I think it possible for Lojban to do so.<b=
r>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">What is clear, however, is t=
hat people don&#39;t want to use CLL Lojban (despite the fact that it is st=
ill the most thoroughly documented version).</span></b><br>
<br>
I do. I think most people want to use the latest version of something. I se=
e the CLL Lojban as the latest version, for the backwards-compatibility rea=
sons mentioned above.<br>
<br>
I have seen CLL-incompatible versions advertised on the website and new lea=
rners are likely to intuit that it&#39;s intrinsically better to choose the=
 &quot;latest version&quot;, not knowing that learning the modern versions =
entails embracing a schism.<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">To be frank, I feel a bit be=
trayed. I feel bad because my hope was that Lojban was more that just an ex=
periment. Someone, please, prove me it is...</span></b><br>
<br>
This is so true for me, and one of the reasons that I became more quiet (al=
though I am writing an unannounced novel that contains CLL Lojban).<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">I just don&#39;t want to spe=
nd time learning things if they would be thrown away in a few months/years<=
/span></b><br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">sykynder: You mention re-int=
egrating forks back into the core language. How do you change something and=
 then make it the same as it was before?</span></b><br>
<br>
I believe all official Lojban changes must be backwards-compatible for Lojb=
an to succeed in its goal of being unambiguous (let alone succeed in other =
ways, such as adoption).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">E.g. learning a revised mean=
ing {lo} is no big deal.</span></b><br>
<br>
It&#39;s not just about learning, it&#39;s about effort invested in writing=
 tools, texts, chatbots and parsers (et cetera).<br>
It&#39;s about breaking that promise in the CLL that the language will not =
be subject to further fiddling.<br>
<br>
Introducing changes that break Lojban compatibility will<br>
- waste invested time in the older version<br>
- waste invested money in buying the older CLL (etc)<br>
- alienate those who wasted their time/money<br>
- introduce more ambiguity (The Lojban version changes the meaning!!)<br>
<br>
(Why did CLL-{le} become modern-{lo} and the modern-{le} get introduced, in=
stead of just introducing the new {lo} to mean what modern-{le} means and k=
eeping CLL-{le} as the default?)<br>
<br>
As learning a revised meaning is no big deal, simply redoing these changes =
to be compatible with CLL Lojban should be no big deal ;)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>&quot;Lojban does not yet have nearly the vocabulary it needs to be a fu=
lly usable language of the modern world&quot;</i><br>
- Complete Lojban Language <a href=3D"http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/" tar=
get=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http://www.=
google.com/url?q\x3dhttp%3A%2F%2Flojban.github.io%2Fcll%2F1%2F2%2F\x26sa\x3=
dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNG2h9GHw8DBpIpiUFxJt2jIr8e2tw&#39;;return tr=
ue;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttp%3A%2F%=
2Flojban.github.io%2Fcll%2F1%2F2%2F\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjC=
NG2h9GHw8DBpIpiUFxJt2jIr8e2tw&#39;;return true;">
http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/<wbr>2/</a> <br>
<br>
If we can agree to move forward using CLL Lojban and only make backwards-co=
mpatible changes, then I can personally say I&#39;ll be happy to resume dev=
oting time, energy and money into Lojban. Lojban&#39;s usefulness as an una=
mbiguous language is so important to me.<br>
<br>
It doesn&#39;t have to be &quot;perfect&quot; or &quot;better&quot;, it jus=
t has to be unambiguous and complete.<br>
<br>
<br>
I want to help complete Lojban, and any processes of governance surrounding=
 it, to reunite it.<u></u></div>
<br>
<p>Thanks for reading,<br>
</p>
<br>
<span>mi&#39;e la timoteios.</span><br><div style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)"><div=
><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

</blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http=
s://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_1173_1164614413.1510122244913--

------=_Part_1172_1430734413.1510122244913--