The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come!

rantingrick rantingrick at
Mon Jul 4 18:35:13 CEST 2011

On Jul 4, 12:06 am, alex23 <wuwe... at> wrote:
> rantingrick <rantingr... at> wrote:
> > But why must we have
> > completely different languages just for that those two approaches?
> Because monocultures die.

That's an interesting statement Alex (even though you parrot it
constantly). So what IS a mono culture exactly? Lemme see...

   """A single, homogeneous culture without diversity or dissension.

Interesting. Would you consider the Python community to be a
monoculture? We are working towards a singular goal so i would say so.
We should be working towards the language that is best for all but
instead we are working towards the language that is best for US.

How about the Ruby community?

Here's a good one; How about the programming community? These groups
would ALL classify as monocultures Alex. So why are they NOT dying?
Well maybe they are and you just cannot see past your own nose (it
does get fairly long from time to time you know).

I believe (unlike most people) that nature is striving for perfection
NOT for diversity. Diversity is just a byproduct of feeble attempts to
GUESS the correct answer. Here is a thought exercise for the advanced
reader...Which is more efficient; Numerous groups working to create
languages that satisfy their selfish needs OR one group of all the
bright minds working to destroy multiplicity and bring about the one
true language that meets the needs of productivity?

In order to achieve perfection we must propagate unity within the
system and we must destroy multiplicity with a vengeance. We must
unite to defeat multiplicity and in doing so we create innovation.
That is the job of intelligent agents, to BRING ORDER TO THE NATURAL
CHAOS OF THIS UNIVERSE! Your natural instincts are of propagating
diversity (read as selfishness) HOWEVER the future exists only in

What do you think will be the eventual outcome of the human existence
Alex? Since you have no imagination i will tell you, a singular
intelligence. However an intelligence that is the product of many
"intelligent agents". A unity intelligence if you will. Just think of
it as a botnet alex, i am sure you have plenty of experience in this

> Because having broader diversity leads to more evolutionary leaps.

Do you think that if we combine all the worthwhile attributes of the
high level languages that somehow everyone is just going to accept
that forever? No, of course not. HOWEVER instead of splitting off into
sects (and damaging our hive mind capabilities) we need to focus our
TIME IN HISTORY... and we will all learn TOGETHER not APART. Diversity
only propagates multiplicity and slows our evolution Alex. It is
selflessness on a grand scale.

> Because the implementations are so fundamentally different.

In the big picture that's untrue. Between say Ruby and Python you a
few LARGE differences and many SMALL differences (and even some
replication). I propose that we combine the Ruby and Python languages
using all the best ideas, however dropping the multiplicity.

> Because the people who ACTUALLY WROTE THE LANGUAGES wanted to explore
> different implementations.

Why can they not explore within the hive mind? Why must they hide
their explorations from the greater group. SELFISHNESS

Here is another thought exercise for the advanced reader. Remember in
the old days when furniture was crafted by hand? Not only was the
furniture EXPENSIVE it was also scarce to come by. Why was this the
case. Because human nature is to be selfish. And our selfishness slows
evolution. But one day some very intelligent chap realized that he
could build furniture not only faster but cheaper by using the
assembly line. Now we have furniture stores on practically every
corner at prices almost anyone can afford. Yes i realize "some" of the
products are not of good quality but that is a result of economics
(and greed) not unity.

> Because the people who ACTUALLY WROTE THE LANGUAGES wanted to explore
> different syntax & semantics.

We should have nailed down syntax and semantics long ago alex! This
should have been step one. No instead we have groupA, groupB, and
groupC still fighting about what is best for their selfish needs
without concerning themselves wit the big picture. It's not what is
best for ME, NO, it's what is best for US.

 * What syntax is most widely intuitive?
 * What semantics are the best for productivity?
 * etc...

> Because learning different approaches expands your appreciation of &
> informs your understanding of both.

Yes, and i agree. But instead of learning in small groups we need to
learn together. Of course we are going to make mistakes along the way.
Heck we may even have to re write the whole spec a time or two. But i
would argue that the chances of making mistakes decrease as the number
of agents increase. I dunno, have you ever heard of a little thing
called Open Source Software. Where people from all over the world
maintain a piece of software. AMAZING HUH? Just imagine if we combined
all the best people from all the current languages. There is your
diversity Alex, however sadly, you have no imagination to see it.

More information about the Python-list mailing list