An assessment of the Unicode standard

[MRAB]

Lie Ryan wrote:
> r wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 4:12 am, Hendrik van Rooyen <hend... at microcorp.co.za>
>> wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>>> When a language lacks a word for a concept like "window", then (I
>>> believe  :-) ), it kind of puts a crimp in the style of thinking that a
>>> person will do, growing up with only that language.
>>
>> Are you telling us people using a language that does not have a word
>> for window somehow cannot comprehend what a window is, are you mad
>> man?  Words are simply text attributes attached to objects. the text
>> attribute doesn't change the object in any way. just think of is
>> __repr__
>>
> 
> Without an outsider (read: someone who used a different language) who 
> pointed out the idea of window; it is impossible for that person to 
> think about the concept of window except in the cases of independent 
> reinvention. This is because people are naturally lazy to think about 
> difficult concepts; "an opening on a plane" is much more difficult to 
> comprehend and express compared to "window". Thus people either have to 
> coin a new word for the complex concept or they won't be able to develop 
> the concept since they don't benefit from the abstraction that the new 
> word gives (think black-box thinking).
> 
A window in a plane is an opening which isn't open as such! :-)

> I would say "a word" is like a new class. A class encapsulates a 
> difficult concept into a much simpler wrapper so we don't have to think 
> about how it is implementated. New concepts and ideas will be developed 
> on top of these classes. Without the abstraction, we would have to use 
> much elaboration to express the more complex concept; and we will fail 
> to form conclusion earlier.
> 
> And this brings out the point: "though it is possible for any language 
> to illustrate any concept; the concept will require much less brain 
> cycle to comprehend in a fuller and richer language due to the wider 
> availability of abstractions".
> 
> "Yes it is possible" "But no, it is not feasible for any mere to think 
> about
>