Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lojban brochure

From: "G. Dyke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:07:36 +0200

Jordan :

FWIW, I think this comparison is a good idea. The proficency of
humans with computer programming languages is important for lojban
because it suggests that the LALR(1)-ness of the lojban grammar
shouldn't make it more difficult for humans than natural languages.
Additionally this comparison certainly targets the core potential
lojban audience, which seems to be people interested in either
languages, computers, or both.

-----------
I'm not really sure that we are capable of seeing any difference in between
an LALR1-lang and a nat-lang, where we can only do a maximum of about
7-token look-ahead anyway. Aside from that, as I've already pointed out,
Lojban is easy on syntax, but hard on semantics while programming languages
are frequently the other way round. (Even though you can often know that a
program is correct without having the faintest Idea what the programmer
intended). I think using "Lojban" and "programming language" in the same
breath is bad PR : non-computer linguists are going to be thrown straight
away by any such comments, while programmer may be lured by false (or
stereotyped) pretences. Sticking a label of "computer language for
communication" (which even such sentences as "lojban is no more difficult to
learn than a programming language" *might* do) on Lojban is not desirable in
a brochure. (We can tell people on irc and stuff that "Lojban is no more
...") but a printed brochure should avoid throwing off people because of
(unfortunate) sterotypes

mu'omi'e greg.