Offline repost: ..!

I remembered my own knowdledge of grammar and sentence forming the whole day long and noticed how memorably similar they are to typical sentences in programming. The, rather universal, point is that in the end each language will come up with a sequences of words representing a an object, a circumstance, a meaning - in German it'd a Subjekt or an Objekt, in English Subject and Object (as long as I remember correctly of course). Those are in interesting because every action, every term of doing something (Verbs) are representable in the Subject/Object form and can thus be used to represent the same. Taking this further, I filtered a lot of other grammar parts I knew from school and came to the realization that every sentence or meaning can be represented with those Subjects (because Verbs can be Subjectified or whatever it's called) and a Context. Quite minimal if you ask me. Just go back to any language you've learned and try to look at it's most abstract syntax. Almost every sentence you'd speak there is like "Operand Operator Operand", a very basic mathematical expression. So whatever one would pre- or post-fix in any of those, it'll only either alter the contex it is seen in or the way of operating on those Operands (atleast thus applies to German and English). There may be implicit rules about the context or the actions or even the operands themself, but it's always an expression of thing doing and action with another. I took this as base for forming simply syntax (though still will programming symbols) that makes it seemingly possible to express everything in it, even in a small amount of time. It's like taking a C operator evaluation but omitting every evaluation order except with brackets. Add a xontext information before each Operand or Operator (usually time, place or another set of sentence forming the wanted context) and you can form pretty much everything you'd describe in reality and also of the stuff that you'd describe in a programming language. That's a base I think. The sentence structure is very easy and clear to understand if one knows it's rules - like with every other language. So it's the most simple and basic way of building and understanding sentences I can currently thinkg of. And I believe that with this simple way the language generation via a computer will be much more easier. However, it shouldn't be compared with something of big expressive value. Language comes from including new elements with every person speaking it, altering shape and meaning permantly over time. This language has no syntactic sugar and only one implicit rules for contexts, nothing more. So I guess I archieved my original goal of designing a simply language usuable for expressing stuff by a computer and beeing easy to learn and understand. Shouldn't burry this document, might come in handy some time...

Oh and as I said, I could use it for a programming language, too, because of it's format. But well, in the end it'd be useless cause I can effectively reach almost everything I want with my language of choice, so there's not much to try there. I have to say I prefer my syntactic sugar. I always loved sweets. However, I only need to think about the words to use then. The language's construct only knows words with any cases to time-specific variants of time. There's simply one words representing everything around it, depending on use as Operand and Operator as well as the context sometimes. It's like choosing new keywords for your favorite programming languages! This reminds me of how much I should learn latin some day. Whatever, maybe I get good enough at splitting the sentence in my mind so that it's worth trying to create a computer able to communicate with me in this language. That'd awesome I assure you.

Darn, I didn't do anything for my game engine. Well, some days one has to do something different that's not completely related to it. Though I have to admit that my current activities aren't that different.

No comments: