Honestly, it doesn't look that bad, I could get used to that syntax. It's not really objectively worse nor better than the normal syntax we have in programming languages now.
I think a true AntiLang would also break conventions of how programming itself works too. This just seems like a normal language with weird syntax.
Turing machines' instructions are different from their data; a Turing machine has a number of states that it flips between depending on what it reads from the tape.
I’m sorry but Krita is actually usable. I have managed to use Krita successful with many projects while with gimp every project ends in frustration and failure.
Funny, because for my simple but over-mspaint editing needs I still prefer GIMP over Krita (and I hate both, ofc). Krita screams “you are a graphics artist”, which nope I’m not. It’s the same mess to me, only starts even slower and thinks that (x, y) / (w x h) is an irrelevant detail.
I think it'd be interesting to extend this to Xenharmonic (aka Microtonal) chords. I think it would break down pretty quickly though, considering diatonic usually doesn't exist (altho you could use some MOS scale as a replacement)
it's perfectly readable to me, I just read any comma as a short pause. When saying that out loud, you would make a short pause. It's read the same whether there's an ellipsis, semicolon, hyphen, or whatever.
Also, no, it isn't semantically indistinguishable from that latter sentence, what? You literally know this, you said that that's "obviously not what is meant". The order of the sentences, and the pause there, is what conveys semantic information, not whether that pause is a comma or not.
> It's read the same whether there's an ellipsis, semicolon, hyphen, or whatever.
So why do you think we have all of those different punctuation marks instead of just one?
I understood what was meant by reading carefully and guessing. If you punctuate more ‘correctly’ (and I’m aware that’s a controversial and triggering suggestion for some), readers don’t have to be careful or guess what you mean — it just flows.
You may think this stuff is surprising because you’ve never noticed it before, but if you look you’ll find that it matters to editors everywhere. If this were to be published, it’d be corrected immediately.
Yes, there are age-old debates between descriptive and prescriptive grammarians. But in my book, “pause = comma” is a crude and inaccurate tool, and “the commas didn’t stop you from figuring out what I meant” is the lowest possible bar.
There are active prescriptive English grammarians? How many, relative to descriptivists? Serious question, I honestly don’t know. Maybe I’m biased, but I thought the framing that English language rules are de-facto historically descriptive and not prescriptive was by far the dominant view among language experts. If there are prescriptivists, they seem to be losing, since English has changed a lot. When I try to dig into any language question, whether it’s punctuation history or word etymology or whatever, the answers by professional linguists always seem to be along the lines of, ‘well some people have opinions, but there’s a wide variety of usage throughout history, c’est la vie’.
I don’t know what you mean about a low bar. Is that a bad thing? What do you want to have happen, either here or with commas in general?
I’m not a prescriptivist either. Language usage changes over time, and that’s fine. And my personal conventions for usage can be different than yours.
The more interesting (to me) question is whether spoken English and written English share the same conventions. I think it’s abundantly clear that in most languages, they are divergent, to the point that some spoken languages have multiple written forms, each with their own ruleset for handling topics like formality or gender.
So to me, saying “gonna” all day long doesn’t automatically transfer to writing, where most people write “going to.” Same with commas—the written conventions are not, as far as I’m concerned, about mimicking speech pauses. If that rule works for you, great. It doesn’t for me, and I fall back to patterns that are drawn from reading the written word.
For low bar, I didn’t mean to sound like I was taking a dig. What I meant was that a written sentence which isn’t comprehensible isn’t functional. Once you get past functional, there’s a world of expression and nuance that come from different writing styles.
> And my personal conventions for usage can be different than yours.
I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But what bothers me (enough to eventually write a comment) is not that others’ conventions differ — it’s that they don't have conventions at all. Words are just strewn all over the page with abandon and anyone who questions it is told to piss off, usually via a long counter-rant laced with moral superiority and mentions of the standard buzzword ‘prescriptivism’. I suspect it’s because it’s deeply insulting and humiliating to be told you’re ignorant about something so seemingly basic, and almost everyone is ignorant when it comes to effective punctuation.
> If that rule works for you, great.
You give people too much credit. It’s not that they’ve tried several styles and eventually landed on this one as a matter of personal taste. They’ve never even noticed the difference.
Again: that there are ‘no formal rules’ for language use does not imply there’s zero value in caring how language is used and trying to keep it consistent and logical.
Just `{}` means a code block; in Zig you could do something like
const c = blk: { const x = 5; break :blk x-3; }; // c = 2
just having an empty block `{}` is exactly that—an empty block of type `void`. having a dot or something else distinguishing it from a block is necessary in order for it to not be that.
cool project, but I don't particularly like "The democratization of spreadsheets" as a catchphrase. Like, what does that even mean? If by "democratization" you mean like, more able to be used, well anyone can go download LibreOffice or for the web use CryptPad's Spreadsheets, and if you mean that it's more open, well both of those are open source. Is this project specifically run democratically or something? It just seems like a really bad use of meaningless marketing terminology.
I think it's the general idea that free (as in speech) software is "democratic". Even if the project does not do what you want you can always modify or fork, i.e. make changes privately for your own use or even distribute them. Closed source software is like totalitarianism, the leader or leading party knows what is best for you.
Democracy is not the best analogy, free software projects have BDFLs. The difference is more indirect, in democracies citizens have rights and freedoms. In non-democracies typically less so.
FOSS is more anarchistic than democratic, I think. Sure, there exist democratic organizations like the Debian Organization, but if you don't agree with their decisions not much binds you to them (that's how projects like Devuan can exist). The same applies to projects with BDFLs as well (altho I do disagree with that form of governance for a project).
99,9999999% of the people using open-Source software are absolutely unable to modify or fork said software. From the other 0,00000000% most don't care enought to modify it.
Calling it democratic is is like calling cancer a completely natural phenomenon. It's true, but it's also completely beside the point
So what? Coming back to the poor analogy of democracy, the same fraction of voters could not run a government. The majority has never participated in any public manifestation.That does not mean we should all live under dictatorship.
I recommend you un-discover it and take a look at the Collabora office suite. It's basically the LibreOffice engine with a web ui on top. We've been using both OnlyOffice and CODE for years, and CODE has much better performance (both the client and the server; probably because the backend is in C++ instead of Node), it's more stable over the long term, and has better compatibility with msoffice.
> Empowering SaaS Developers: Hundreds, if not thousands, of companies have implemented half-baked spreadsheets in their systems. IronCalc aims to provide these businesses with a superior, open-source alternative that enhances their SaaS applications.
I am currently creating SAAS and the idea of implementing LibreOffice on top of my offering just not gonna work.
Dark matter is more of an observation than a theory. The gravitational motions of galaxies doesn't really make sense without it (and with dark matter + General Relativity, it fits perfectly, so we have good reason to believe it exists).
There are a few different theories on what dark matter is; there's axions, supersymmetry (from string theory), cold dark matter and more.
I think a true AntiLang would also break conventions of how programming itself works too. This just seems like a normal language with weird syntax.