Subject: Re: lojban as a programming language [was Re: [lojban] Lojban for lay programmers]

From: Lee Daniel Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:09:36 -0800 (PST)

> > Sure, one could probably stretch lojban into "artistic" uses, but
> > doing so would produce bad art and risk weakening the language for
> > its designed use: clarity.
> 
> Response 1: But is it Art? So you think art opposes clarity. But one
> doesn't have to consider art that way. Mathematicians & theoretical
> scientists pursue their craft for aesthetic reasons. They could be
> considered artists. There, the passion and emotion is created by clarity
> and absoluteness, not opposed to it.

Well, there probably are /new/ forms of art that Lojban would be
suited for; sure, I can appreciate the esthetic beauty of a mathematical
expression. What I'm saying is that many of our /existing/ forms of
art do indeed depend upon language features that Lojban utterly lacks,
and trying to use Lojban for those would be as pointless as using a
hammer and chisel to write poetry or sculpting clay with a fountain pen.

Some of the /existing/ things people do with language Lojban is very
well suited for already: specs, contracts, etc. Selling it for those
uses is more likely to lead to satisfied customers, which will then
create a large enough user base that those new art forms can be
discovered and used. But trying to start off by shoehorning
traditional poetry into the language doesn't seem smart.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <[email-masked]> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC