i've also got a bone to pick with this idea that languages cannot be general while covering specific uses well. i know about Godel's theorem and all that, and all languages are the same, but paradoxes and other anomalies are irrelevant to computers, that's called an error.

what i really don't like is how it seems to be underpinned by the "rules for thee and not for me" inherent in the "polylogism" of marxism. the idea that communication cannot happen between classes, for reasons.

this is bullshit.

even many kinds of mammals have rudimentary language abilities that enable humans to have a conversation with them that actually achieves something. dogs herding sheep, cats asking for dinner and clean the toilet.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

i mean, even computers can communicate with humans through LLM programs. how can it be possible that two any different classes of thing can be different than a souped up calculator and a human.

there is only one class war:

the war of criminals against good people.

if there is no communication between two classes of things it's because one is a parasite and the other is its host.

computers are computers and computations are computations, so yeah in theory I agree with you. However some languages have Lindy effect in certain areas. A lot of effort was spent to develop frameworks on them, which became industry standards. You don't have to use them but that means a big disadvantage

yeah, in general, it's all about libraries and hardware interfaces.