[Sussex] Improving on UNIX

[Mark Harrison]

> Ahh but here your arguement has moved
from Ideological representation of
> methods and ideas to implementation of
methods and articualtion.

Well, erm, yes, that's the point!

You claimed that the use of icon-based
languages hampered development, quoting
the examples of cuneiform and
hieroglyphics.

I fundamentally disagree, based on
historical evidence. My response was
that your claim did not stack up UNTIL
one considered the implementation of
those languages and specific
technological advances in the last 7% of
the language's use.

My personal view would be that the
language most likely to contribute to
ongoing development of (ideas / science
/ culture / technology / art) is the
language that is most efficiently
understood by the entire community. In
order to do this, it needs two
attributes:

1: Easily replicable with the technology
of the day.

2: Efficient at communicating
information quickly.

Here's my working hypothesis:

- 3000BC - 1600AD
--- 1: Neither style of language enjoys
a particular advantage
--- 2: Iconic languages enjoy an small
advantage, cultures using them make
advances

- 1600AD - 2000AD
--- 1: alphabet-based languages enjoy a
massive advantage
--- 2: While iconic languages enjoy
still a small advantage, it's not enough
to overcome the problems of reproduction
in contemporary technology

2000AD -

--- 1: Neither style of language enjoys
a particular advantage, since current
technology is able to process either
efficiently
--- 2: Who knows?

M.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nik Butler" <nik at wired4life.org>
To: <sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Sussex] Improving on UNIX


> > The question of development is worth
> > challenging.
> >
> > To claim that, say, the use of a
> > non-alphabetical language restricted
> > development prior to the late middle
> > ages sadly doesn't stack up. Many
> > technological and cultural advances
were
> > first made in Asia - the classic
example
> > would be the development of
gunpowder in
> > China.
> Ahh but here your arguement has moved
from Ideological representation of
> methods and ideas to implementation of
methods and articualtion.