On 06/03/2008, alex <alex_at_lurk.org> wrote:
>
>
> I've been pondering about what a syntax free language might look like.
Is this a Koan?
Perhaps something like max/puredata. These graph based languages still
> have textual labels like other languages, but the syntax is done by
> connecting the labels together with wires, to particular inlets and
> outlets.
It's been a while since I was into language philosophy but I think that's
semantics. The syntax of MAX/PD is that you aren't allowed to connect a
output to a output.
As I see it most graphical systems for programing (at least the ones I know)
enforce syntax by simply not allowing you to do things that aren't according
to the syntax. Some even go as far as having all setting of values done
through buttons and knobs that have set ranges (so no GHz oscillators in
CD-quality audio).
Perhaps I'm missing a deeper layer of what you are hinting at but I think
they are dealing with the syntax for you, it's still there. This is often
very convenient and at times a bit like Orwell's "newspeak".
You seem to be hinting at the difference between a compiler complaining "I
have no idea what you are talking about" and a graphical system ignoring a
certain click or drag and thus expressing "I'm sure you didn't mean
something with that". Different for sure and a interesting difference but I
wouldn't go as far as to say the graphical systems have no syntax.
But how could you get the meaning across without the syntax of wires? I
> think by making distance meaningful, putting labels close together or
> far apart would somehow describe their relationship. Instead of a graph
> of labels you would make clusters of labels with particular semantic
> arrangements.
The only way out -to me- seems a system where everything that can be
expressed is meaningful. If we wanted to nit-pick (which I honestly don't!)
we'd have to say it comes down to a "system where everything that can be
expressed within the system is meaningful", and admit there is still syntax
there. If I take a Reactible, take three of the blocks put to the side and
start juggling with those that's clearly a expression that's outside of the
legal range of expressions to the Reactable.
Perhaps a "system without syntax" would have to be a system without bounds
or one that keeps growing?
> Clearly I haven't thought this through, but does anyone have any more
> ideas how this could work?
I'd start by re-defining the question. I'd start by trying to focus on
what's really appealing here, being a system that doesn't limit impulsive
creativity by having us remember what we can and can't do yet offers a range
of things that can be expressed that's as large as possible given that.
By that I'm honestly not trying to spoil the good idea by nit-picking about
how it was expressed. I really like where you are going but I think the
focus on "syntax", if maintained, would lead to a dead end.
I'd also like to add that becoming consciously aware of the syntax of
graphical systems sounds very healthy to me. Often one hears musicians say
"with system X you can do anything" and is forced to realise those musicians
subconsciously limited what they thought was possible at all to the range of
things offered by that system. Back to Newspeak....(hey, that last sentence
wasn't syntactically a sentence, funny).
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 11:29:02 GMT