From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sat Feb 10 11:23:34 1996 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id LAA13940 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 11:23:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199602101623.LAA13940@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 2246A281 ; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:36:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:35:54 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: *old response to djer. X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 2162 >It's difficult to predict the future with any degree of accuracy where >any voluteer project is concerned. But if enthusiasm and drive have >anything to do with it, the FreeBSD Project has a bright future indeed. >Far from resting on its laurels, the team is looking for fresh >challenges. > >[caps by djer] > >HAVING SPLIT DEVELOPMENT INTO INTO TWO BRANCES, "-STABLE" (I.E. >SEMIFROZEN) AND "-CURRENT"(I.E. IN FLUX), A LARGE NUMBER OF DEVELOPERS >HAVE BEEN FREED TO CONCENTRATE ON NEW SOLUTIONS WITHOUT SACRIFICING >STABILITY. Having now seen this reference, I think that there is a key difference from Lojban. In our case, the primary movers and shakers of the project are drooling for "-STABLE" and the moment it appears will have no interest in working on, supporting, or even tolerating efforts to develop some successor labelled "-CURRENT". To put it bluntly - I am tired of being a language designer. The purpose of the Loglan project was NOT to design or to improve a language but to USE a language that had first to BE designed. The process of development needs to be over. As long as there are fiddlers, there will be far less users. (People use software that is subject to "improvement" knowing that a) the developer usually promises complete backward compatibility and b) they can always ignore and not purchase a new version and get what they originally wanted out of the old package. This does not work well for conlangs because a) it is likely that some changes will NOT be backwards compatible and b) especially if the changes are major enough, they will no longer be able to use their old version. It is vaguely possible that a student of 1975 Loglan could write something that a 1996 TLI Loglan student could figure out. It is NOT likely, however, for anything but the simplest texts using only gismu and cmavo. It is even less possible that a student of 1975 Loglan would write something a 1996 Lojban student could understand. Because 1975 Loglan never achieved functionality, people who learned it (other than for the purpose of "improving it") largely wasted their time. lojbab