On 03/06/2024 12:13 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 06/03/2024 20:50, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2024-03-06, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>> On 3/6/24 09:18, Michael S wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:50:16 +0000
>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Whoever wrote this short Wikipedia article on it got confused too as
>>>>> it uses both Ada and ADA:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)
>>>>>
>>>>> (The example program also includes 'Ada' as some package name. Since
>>>>> it is case-insensitive, 'ADA' would also work.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your link is to "simple Wikipedia". I don't know what it is
>>>> exactly, but it does not appear as authoritative as real Wikipedia
>>>
>>> Notice that in your following link, "en" appears at the beginning to
>>> indicate the use of English. "simple" at the beginning of the above link
>>> serves the same purpose. "Simple English" is it's own language, closely
>>> related to standard English.
>>
>> Where is Simple English spoken? Is there some geographic area where
>> native speakers concentrate?
>>
>
> It is meant to be simpler text, written in simpler language. The target
> audience will include younger people, people with dyslexia or other
> reading difficulties, learners of English, people with lower levels of
> education, people with limited intelligence or learning impediments, or
> simply people whose eyes glaze over when faced with long texts on the
> main Wikipedia pages.
>
>

Yet, why?

There's "Simplified Technical English", which is a same
sort of idea, with the idea that manuals and instructions
be clear and unambiguous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Technical_English

Heh, it's like in the old days, when people would get
manuals, and be amused as it were by the expression.

What I'd like to know about is who keeps dialing
the "harmonization" efforts, which really must
give grouse to the "harmonisation" spellers,
when good old-fashioned words "spelt" their own way,
which of course is archaic "spelled".

It reminds me of "Math Blaster" and "Typing Games",
vis-a-vis, "the spelling bee", and for that matter,
of course, weekly spelling quizzes all through
elementary school.

I'm so old the only games we had were how to
compute and how to spell.

And Tooth Invaders. Just kidding I had 50+ floppies
for my Commodore64. Like GI Joe and Beachhead II.

But we didn't get promoted in school if we
didn't pass our spelling tests.

(We couldn't even have dangling prepositions
or sentence fragments like the above.)

We had a class in school we couldn't even pass
until we could type thirty words a minute.

The Simplified Technical English though is a good idea,
it's used in technical manuals and instructions, widely.

Really, whever harmonization dials away a word,
I'm like, hey, I'm using that word.

There's something to be said for a, "source parser",
the idea being a, multi-pass parser of sorts, with
any number of, forms, so that it results, parsing
languages sort of opportunistically, and results,
sort of lifting, sections, of source, into regions
of syntax, so that as syntaxes get all commingled,
that all the syntax and grammar definitions get piled
together, where it sort of results then for comments
and quoting, and, usual ideas of brackets, and comma,
for joiners and separators and groupers and splitters,
observing mostly usually the parenthetical and indentation,
for all sorts of languages, into, a pretty common sort of
form.

So, what is there, "Simplified Compilation Source",
basically reflecting, "if it's source somehow it
parses, if being ambiguous among languages then
in editions of each or according to the source
locale", these kinds of things....

For a long time I've been thinking about "modular
and composable parsers", with mostly the usual
goal of relating productions in grammar to source
locations, that one figures it would be a most usual
sort of study, to result, all the proliferation of
little languages, get all parsed, then for the great
facility of "term re-write rules" and "term-graph
re-write rules", or "re-write systems", or for
extracting signatures, identifiers, and logic,
for any kind of language.

I think everybody reading this has a most usual
sort of exposure to the theory of parsing as after
Backus-Naur format, vis-a-vis syntax diagrams or
railroad diagrams, and Chomsky hierarchy, and lexers
and parsers and the interpreted and all these kinds
of things, but I don't know a sort of wide-open
framework that parses any kinds of sources and
happens to also re-write itself to any sort of target,
parsing any source language in any source language.

Did I miss the memo?

What I got into was defining languages in terms
of comments and quoting, and, brackets and commas,
and, space and line, in terms of, sequence and alternation,
for basically that all the source is loaded or mapped into
memory, then instead of an abstract syntax tree or sorts,
results an abstract syntax sequence of sorts, those "lifted"
over the source text for its location, then that any sort
of lexicalizing and syntax and grammar, all get put together
as modules and any one just enumerates or makes equivalent
whatever kind of source it is, then according to the
language, results usual sorts constructs and productions,
for functional and procedural languages, and data,
and, you know, language.

Tesniere, Tesniere is the great complement to Chomsky,
where after Chomsky is like, "this finite state machine
builds models of productions in minimal resources", to,
something like, "Simplified Compilation Source", parser,
"this algorithm works in fixed or linear resources in
up to factorial time and parses anything, and unparsed
sections are their source text, and iterating the data
structure or any segment iterates the source under it
that it's lifted over".

See, look at that, "lifted over", I would get a bad
mark for that. Of course that's since been relaxed,
figuring it's natural to dangle and OK to continue.
And so on.

So anyways as long as we're talking about all the usual
languages, uh, is that all "Common Source Language"?

CS language?

So, for something like, "Common Compilation Components",
figuring all sorts usual functional and procedural
productions sort of have a usual form and thusly
can be a great fabric of re-write rules, or targetting,
basically is for making common-enough productions and
the algorithm be multi-pass as necessary, to result
a usual sort of workbench for languages of the source.

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:36:14 -0800, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> What I'd like to know about is who keeps dialing the "harmonization"
> efforts, which really must give grouse to the "harmonisation"
> spellers ...

Some words came from French and had “-ize”, others did not and had “-ise”.
Some folks in Britain decided to change the former to the latter.

“Televise”, “merchandise”, “advertise” -- never any “-ize” form.

“Synchronize”, “harmonize”, “apologize” -- “-ize” originally.

On 03/11/2024 05:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:36:14 -0800, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> What I'd like to know about is who keeps dialing the "harmonization"
>> efforts, which really must give grouse to the "harmonisation"
>> spellers ...
>
> Some words came from French and had “-ize”, others did not and had “-ise”.
> Some folks in Britain decided to change the former to the latter.
>
> “Televise”, “merchandise”, “advertise” -- never any “-ize” form.
>
> “Synchronize”, “harmonize”, “apologize” -- “-ize” originally.
>

Hey thanks that's something I hadn't thought,
that the harmonization was coming from this
side of the pond besides vice-versa, with regards
to that "harmonization" is an effort in controlled
languages in terms of natural languages which
are organic though of course subject their extended
memory the written corpi, which I write corpi, not corpora.

It's like when the dictionary adds new words,
the old words are still words, in, the "Wortbuch",
an abstract dictionary of all the words, that I read
about in Curme. (I'm a fan of Tesniere and Curme.)

About parsing and re-writing systems, I'm really wondering
a lot about, compilation units, lines, spacing and indentation,
blocks, comments, quoting, punctuation, identifiers,
brackets, commas, and stops, how to write grammars
for all sorts usual source language in those, and result,
a novel sort of linear data structure above those,
in whatever languages so recognized in those,
and any sections it doesn't as the source text.

I looked around a bit and after re-writing on the Wiki
and "multi-pass parser" there are some sorts ideas,
usually in terms of fungible intermediate languages
for targeting those to whatever languages, here
though mostly to deal with a gamut of existing code,
there are lots of syntax recognizers and highlighters
and this kind of thing, "auto-detect" in the static
analysis toolkit, the languages, then as with regards to
that a given compilation unit is only gonna be one or
a few languages in it, with regards for example to
"code in text" or "text in code", about comments,
sections, blocks, or "language integrated code"
or "convenience code", "sugar modes", you know,
about what the _grammar_ specifications would be,
and the lexical and syntax the specifications, to
arrive at a multi-pass parser, that compiles a whole
bunch of language specs, finds which ones apply
where to the compilation unit, then starts building
them up "lifting" them above the character sequence,
building an "abstract syntax sequence" (yeah I know)
above that, then building a model of the productions
directly above that, that happens to be exactly derived
from the grammar productions, with the same sort
of structure as the grammar productions.

(Order, loop, optional, a superset of eBNF, to support
syntaxes with bracket blocks like C-style and syntaxes
with indent blocks though I'm not into that, the various
inversions of comments and code, the various interpolations
of quoting, brackets and grouping and precedence,
commas and joining and separating, and because SQL
doesn't really comport itself to BNF, these kinds of things.)

Of course it's obligatory that this would be about C/C++
and as with regards to Java which of course is in the
same style, or that its derivative, is for example that
M4/C/C++ code is already to a multi-pass parser, and,
Java at some point added language features which
fundamentally require a multi-pass parser, so it's not
like the entire resources of the mainframe has to fit
a finite-state-machine on the read-head, in fact at
compile-time specifically there's "it's fair to consider
a concatenation of the compilation units as a linear
input in space", then figuring the "liftings" are linear
in that, in space, then that the productions whence
derived are as concise as the productions a minimal
model, thus discardable the intermediate bit, is for
introducing a sort of common model of language
representation, source language, for reference
implementations of the grammars, then to make
the act of ingestion of sources in languages as a
first-class kind of thing, I'm looking for one of those,
and that's about as much I've figured out it is.

It's such a usual idea I must imagine that it's
commonplace, as it's just the very most simple
act of the model of iterating these things and
reading them out.

I probably might not care about it but getting
to where it takes a parser that can parse SQL
for example, or, you know, when there are lots
of source formats but it's just data and definitions,
yeah if you know that there's like a very active
open project in that I'd be real interested in a
sort of "source/object/relational mapping", ...,
as it were, "source/grammatical-production mapping",
what results you identify grammars and pick sources
and it prints out the things.

I'm familiar with the traditional approaches,
and intend to employ them. I figure this
must be a very traditional approach if
nobody's heard of it.