Mind that Dante invented the language that italians speak. That is, he encoded and merged vulgar latin as had evolved in contact with the laguages of the northern invading tribes that overran the Roman Empire for the previous 750 years in successive waves. And his version became the new pidgin in which peoples from all the Italic peninsula could communicate with each other, as the Pontifical States adopted the language as official that made its establishement easier[1]. Each region had its own language and that situation remained until the late XIX Century.
[1] Don't be surprised. Take for example Urdu, the language spoken in Pakistan and large parts of Kashmir. It is an entirely artificial language, based on Pashto and Farsi if I recall correctly, that was imposed some 200 years ago by the British Raj <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu#Origin> as a political decision to submit the local population.
Your pointing to the Papal States reminds me: another period of Italy's history also demonstrates this narrative quite well. The Fascist government was the first body to publish a large amount of literature in Italian, which lead to more Italians speaking it than ever had. And as the people used Italian as a kind of pidgin under the Papal States, so too did they use it as a pidgin when so many were displaced during and following the War and the partisan resistance.
> . Take for example Urdu, the language spoken in Pakistan and large parts of Kashmir. It is an entirely artificial language, based on Pashto and Farsi if I recall correctly, that was imposed some 200 years ago by the British Raj as a political decision to submit the local population.
To clarify: Urdu is primarily Hindi, Arabic, and some Farsi. I don't speak any of those languages, but from what I understand, those are the primary components. Pashto is a more minor one. which has had an influence on the language due to the large number of native Pashto speakers in Pakistan.
Also, most of what you said is correct, but to anyone reading this, that Wikipedia page is unfortunately rather misleading. It's not exactly wrong because Hindi itself is so heterogenous that it should honestly be considered multiple languages. But it says that Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible, which is misleading. Really, a more accurate statement would be that "some speakers who identify their language as Hindi are able to understand Urdu". Many Hindi speakers[0] would not be able to understand Urdu; many have difficulty even understanding other Hindi speakers.
For example, most of my family speaks fluent Hindi[1]. However, none of them can actually understand Urdu except the ones that also happen to speak Arabic (because they lived in Arabic-speaking countries for a few years). It's like how English speakers may be able to pick out some German words, but not actually understand the language when spoken, whereas learning Dutch might help them bridge the gap.
This is similar to the situation with Arabic, which we treat as a single language, but is actually a spectrum of many different languages that are partially (but not always completely) mutually intelligible. It's hard to explain this by analogy to English speakers, unfortunately, because English dialects are relatively homogeneous by comparison[2].
[0] and I'd be willing to venture most, though it depends very much on which regions and religions you survey
[1] Again, to be precise, this means that they use the name "Hindi" to refer to the language that they speak.
[2] which says more about what we classify as "English", which is a political decision rather than a linguistic one, which brings us back to the original point all over again.
Really, you need to actually go out and meet the world around you. It isn't all wine and roses I assure you, but it is better than living in a bubble, those burst, you know. If you decide to travel to South America and go by Bogotá, contact me and I'll show you around the good, the bad and the ugly.
Just walk into an alley at night in Manhattan or Chicago or Boston or Los Angeles or (surprise!) San Franciso and you'll know... Seriously, read the newspapers of any more or less poor third world country and you will find many notes about people mugged and killed, stabbed or shot to death, to steal them some US$75 chinese MediaTek shitphone you can find in Amazon.
I'll give you some newspapers in Latin American cities that range from 6 to 25 million inhabitans:
Blade Runner is different because of the attention it received due to the "Final Cut" version that came out in 2007. If it hadn't been for that, references to it would probably be a lot less recognizable with the younger crowd. Case in point: I recently made a "2001: A Space Odyssey" reference in front of a room full of 20-something programmers and not one person picked up on it. It wasn't even that obscure -- it was a picture of the monolith, one of the most recognizable images from the movie (and in science fiction in general). The people in the room generally just hadn't seen or even heard of (really all that is required to get the reference) the movie.
Is it a reference to blade runner ? I've guessed that from the following comments, but otherwise i wouldn't have known ( and i have seen the movie). I don't even know what part of the movie that comment makes reference to...
Edit : ok, found it. I remember that scene but nothing from the speech... Glad to know that was a cult moment.
Hmm... There is a basic misuse of terms here. The author uses the term "distributing applications" but he is actually talking about application deployment. Oh well, language evolves and most of the times becomes murkier.
But I do agree. There is a in inherent higher barrier of entry when you force your users to install third-party libraries or even your deliverable from an outside ("fourth-party"?) distribution source. Be it ruby gems, CPAN, Pypy, cabal, whatever.
