Ryan Keppel wrote:
Er, how do you know I haven't? I've been involved in Lojban longer than you, since even before your first association with it. Robin says I am "not far behind you," so I guess I'll have to take that as confirmation that I have not yet met your goal. Although in the years I've been here, for all my distractions and everything, I think I have contributed a whole lot of intellectual energy and resources to The Cause, maybe even more than you have.How about you match what I have given to Lojban? Huh? I am thinking that you will have no reply to this. Huh? Eh?
At any rate, all that is neither here nor there; it doesn't matter the tiniest bit even if I had contributed nothing up till now. It doesn't speak to what you were talking about.
To the topic at hand, though: you were asking about a "binary" version of Lojban, in the same sense that Python bytecode is a binary version of Python. It doesn't even really matter what the bytecode is, though, since I suppose one could write any number of languages not at all like Python that still compile to Python bytecode, or to Java bytecode, and so on. I suppose we could use one of those for Lojban's bytecode as well, though it would be a very restricted form of the language (since most of the gismu of Lojban don't have much meaning in terms of computer operations). A higher-level Lojbanic bytecode for interpretation by and as an AI would be nice, but I think we can't do anything meaningful in that direction until first we have some decent AI working with and from Lojban as it is.
We could try to write a Lojban-to-JVM compiler, I suppose, essentially making Lojban a programming language. Or write a Lojban-oriented VM, though I don't really see what such a thing would be. I think someone once wrote a Lojban-to-Prolog compiler or interpreter, which is sort of along those lines.
I still somehow doubt any of these solutions are what you are looking for, which makes me think I'm not understanding what you want very well.
~mark