Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
 
PerlMonks  

Linguistic determinism is the idea that language shapes thought.

by princepawn (Parson)
on Oct 12, 2007 at 19:41 UTC ( #644531=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: What's wrong with Perl 6?
in thread What's wrong with Perl 6?

Syntax is just skin
Linguistic determinism is the idea that language shapes thought. As a hobbyist in the J programming language I disagree that syntax is just skin... sure they could all compile down into the same parse tree, but, but... ummm.. well, I still disagree :)


Carter's compass: I know I'm on the right track when by deleting something, I'm adding functionality
  • Comment on Linguistic determinism is the idea that language shapes thought.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Linguistic determinism is the idea that language shapes thought.
by TimToady (Parson) on Oct 12, 2007 at 20:52 UTC

    Well, I don't know about you, but I value my skin highly, and prefer it not to have warts. Nevertheless, I don't confuse my skin with my soul.

    By the way, linguistic determinism is not just about syntax. If it is to be a limiting factor, it must be about a language as a whole, including phonology, morphology, semantics, pragmatics, lexicon, and if you're exceptionally lucky, a culture. As someone who liked to play football when I was younger, I can vouch for the fact that I did a lot of non-linguistic thinking when running down the field deciding how to fake out the pass coverage. I certainly don't believe in the strong Whorf-Sapir hypothesis. And as to whether J proves or disproves your point, much of that language is ultimately derived from mathematics, and even in that realm the algebraicists will disagree with the geometers over how much linguistics has to do with mathematical thought.

    But what really has me curious is why you quote Carter's Compass in your signature but refuse to let me apply it to Perl 5. :-)

      Should not we talk of the Djikstra hypothesis for computer environments instead of Sapir-Whorf? The tools we use have a profound (and devious!) influence on our thinking habits, and, therefore, on our thinking abilities. in this paper. What I like about Perl is that it takes malleability of the natural language without aping its surface syntaxe. Unlike Fortran and Cobol who are not malleable enough and take from natural language only a few words used as keywords.

      Perl 6 is getting rid of the Perl 5 ossification to give a new meaning to malleability. Think Perl 6 macros for example. Introspection is proper to human thought, it should be the rules in programming languages. So the second Djikstra hypothesis, is wrong when you take it for its spirit : Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail.

      Speaking of syntax, the second language to impress me for its concision is Haskell, that I discovered thru pugs. Like Larry Wall did for Perl, the conceptors of haskell did put a lot of thought to get it right. It seens that most language designers don't think much about language syntax or for pedagogical reason stick to the convention of mainstream languages.

      In the late eighties, Gosling, when designing NeWS, an innovating window system at the time, picked the postfixed syntax of PostScript with the clean semantic of the PostScript imaging system, dooming NeWS from the start. PostScript is intended to be generated by programs, not by programmers. Later, by mostly picking the C syntax, Gosling found a public for Java but, in my opinion, made it uninteresting from the start even if the idea of portability thru a virtual machine was brillant even if, in the long term, it did not panned out as well as expected. But this is due to refusing to make the language open source in due time, causing incompatible implementations and libraries.

      -- stefp

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://644531]
help
Chatterbox?
[ambrus]: Corion: well Prima::Object says something like that the cleanup method will send an onDestory message and that you can't get more messages after cleanup, or something.
[Corion]: ambrus: Yeah - I don't think the deep source dive will be necessary if things are implemented as simple as they could be :)) And hopefully I won't need (more) timely object destruction. I can update the screen at 60Hz and hopefully even do HTTP ...
[Corion]: ... transfers in the background. Now that I think about it, this maybe even means that I can run the OpenGL filters on Youtube input :)
[ambrus]: Corion: I mentioned that the unix event loop of Prima always wakes up at least once every 0.2 seconds. Have you found out whether the win32 event loop of Prima does that too?
[Corion]: ambrus: Hmm - I would assume that the onDestroy message is sent from the destructor and doesn't go through the messageloop, but maybe it is sent when a window gets destroyed but all components are still alive...
[ambrus]: Corion: partly deep source dive, partly just conservative coding even if it adds an overhead.
[Corion]: ambrus: Hmm - no, I haven't looked at wakeup intervals ... I wonder why it should want to wakeup periodically because it gets a lot of messages from the Windows message loop (on Windows obviously)
[ambrus]: (Alternately a deep source dive and then rewrite that event loop to make it better, and then as a bonus you get an idle method.)
[ambrus]: The 0.2 seconds wakeup is likely a workaround for some bug, but I can't guess what bug that is.
[ambrus]: It's been there since Prima 1.00 iirc

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (7)
As of 2016-12-09 10:29 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    On a regular basis, I'm most likely to spy upon:













    Results (150 votes). Check out past polls.