this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2022
6 points (63.6% liked)

General Programming Discussion

7814 readers
1 users here now

A general programming discussion community.

Rules:

  1. Be civil.
  2. Please start discussions that spark conversation

Other communities

Systems

Functional Programming

Also related

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
Restioson@lemmy.ml
6
International auxiliary languages should be utilized in software development (to improve international collaboration). (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Amicchan@lemmy.ml to c/programming@lemmy.ml
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Given that international auxiliary languages allow for more efficient cooperation; I think more people should consider using an easily learnable IAL, like Esperanto.

IALs would reduce the English dominance that gate-keeps software development to English persons; and hence allow more potential software developers to better develop software. The English language is mostly dominant in software development because of linguistic imperialism.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Amicchan@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Esperanto is not a particularly easily learnable language to most of the world.

How so? I doubt English is any different.

It’s a very parochial language made by someone whose exposure to language was all European

English is not only European, but also Germanic. It spread through imperialism by the Anglosaxtons. How is English any different?

What's wrong with Esperanto being derived from Europe? Do you expect someone to make a language which can easily combine all spoken languages into a universal one? That is a hard task to accomplish; given the diversity in all languages used by humanity.

and very strongly focused on specifically East European languages both phonetically and grammatically.

How is that bad? Esperanto still works off European languages (which includes English). English specifically is Germanic, and not generally European, so it's derived from specific language that most Europeans don't speak.

Esperanto would be, but it would be a million times more useful given the rather pathetically small number of Esperanto speakers out there.

I wouldn't consider 1 million confirmed, and 2 million estimated, Esperanto speakers to be a "pathetically small" number. Esperanto got suppressed by Nazi Germany and Soviet Union; it would have likely been more popular if it didn't get suppressed. Esperanto mostly spread through other speakers; so it's impressive it survived its suppression.

There are a bunch of native languages that barely have speakers at all: Cherokee has under 2000 speakers.

Also, the most popular native language is Chinese; second most popular is Spanish; and English is only the third most popular. English is also only native in ~~5~~ 4 (I miscounted) countries; not exactly fair to impose to the other countries to learn English just for the convenience of other imperialist countries; especially when most English speakers barely even attempt to learn other languages.

I wouldn't be surprised if Chinese overtakes English as the most popular language within a decade.

English, to take a horrifically terrible language at random, is not much harder to learn for, say, a Chinese speaker

That is a sweeping generalization you made. How would Esperanto be harder for a Chinese person than English?

but it would be a million times more useful

Not if there are non-native English speakers.

If you’re going to use a constructed IAL (as opposed to de facto lingua francas like have been historically the case), make one that isn’t filled with idiotic things like declension by case, by gender, by number, by tense, by …

How are declensions by X idiotic? Also by what? You didn't complete the list.

Is English declension idiotic too?

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sparky, here's a tip: read what I actually wrote instead of whatever words were flowing through your brain from the voices. Then come back and actually address what I actually said. It's amazing how much you wrote in response to material you understood so little of.

[–] Amicchan@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sparky, here’s a tip: read what I actually wrote instead of whatever words were flowing through your brain from the voices.

I did. Why do you think I quoted your text?

Then what did you actually say?

Then come back and actually address what I actually said.

But I did.

It’s amazing how much you wrote in response to material you understood so little of.

Wow. That's pretty insulting (to assume someone's intelligence because they made a counterargument lmao).

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I did. Why do you think I quoted your text?

You quoted text that said the exact opposite of what you then argued against. Read for comprehension this time.

[–] Amicchan@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You quoted text that said the exact opposite of what you then argued against. Read for comprehension this time.

Where did I do this? I don't see what you're talking about.

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's rather obvious you don't see what I'm talking about. Even when you QUOTE IT.

English, to take a horrifically terrible language at random, is not much harder to learn for, say, a Chinese speaker

That is a sweeping generalization you made. How would Esperanto be harder for a Chinese person than English?

See that there, Sparky? That's you claiming I said the precise opposite of what I said.

(Note, also, that I very clearly called English a "horrifically terrible language" yet the rest of your response to that was acting as if I said English were a good language. Another sign of not reading for comprehension, but rather reading to find some excuse to react even if you have to make up that excuse.)

So go back and re-read everything .... EVERYTHING ... I said for comprehension before you waste any more of my time. I'm tired of intellectually dishonest Esperantists.

[–] Amicchan@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It's rather obvious you don't see what I'm talking about. Even when you QUOTE IT.

English, to take a horrifically terrible language at random, is not much harder to learn for, say, a Chinese speaker

That is a sweeping generalization you made. How would Esperanto be harder for a Chinese person than English?

See that there, Sparky? That's you claiming I said the precise opposite of what I said.

~~Uh, how is that the opposite of what I said?~~ Oh. I see. Yeah that was idiotic. However, don't be so damn rude to me for making a mistake; because that dis-motivates me from trying to learn from a mistake.

Still, by complexity, English would take longer to learn than Esperanto.

(Also, what's a Sparky?)

(Note, also, that I very clearly called English a "horrifically terrible language" yet the rest of your response to that was acting as if I said English were a good language.

All I said was:

How are declensions by X idiotic? Also by what? You didn’t complete the list.

Is English declension idiotic too?

I didn't say anything about the English language being bad. How could that be implied to say that English is a bad language?

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You said a whole lot more than that, Sparky. Goodbye.

[–] Amicchan@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

You said a whole lot more than that, Sparky. Goodbye.

Uh, what?