Re: Hacker Language (was Re: Language comparison)

> I disagree.  One of the most important parts of the definition of
> "hacker" is the sharing of information (not necessarily to the extreme
> of Stallman).  Some people don't share, but they (probably) shouldn't
> be called hackers.  See:
> http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/H/hacker-ethic.html (and also:
> http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html )
Ditto.

Though hackers, IME, tend to be a bit uppity about the level of
experience they're willing to communicate with as a minimum standard,
which can have the same effect as not wanting to share.

> You're worried about *vocabulary*?!  Surely the interesting thing will
> be the *grammar*.
With you again.

> * recursive lists - LISP
> * subobjects - C++ / Inform
Aren't all grammars recursive?

> * references - sed/MIXAL
> * regexen - UN*X
> * simple repeating of pieces with substitutions: "And then the same
> with foo in the position marked '2'"
Pronouns on crack!

> * the position/time system - General Relativity
Like done in e.g. Ithkuil?

> * packets (including attitudinals & metadata) - TCP/IP
Similar to Laadan for some things, though hopefully would include even more...

> * returnants - comma from C; semicolon (?) from Smalltalk
> * set theory
> * currying
> * lambda expressions (replace some "illogical" features of English) -
> lambda calculus
... huh?

- Sai