For spoken languages it has been proven concretely that they don't shape thought. But for programming languages it is a whole different case. Because by definition there are things you CAN'T express or even are NOT ALLOWED to express in language X vs Y. So in programming, languages DO shape thoughts, design decisions and so on.
You're going to have to expand on this, because it seems straightforwardly wrong: "For spoken languages it has been proven concretely that they don't shape thought." Which 'thoughts' are you having that aren't shaped by language? And how would you possibly be able to understand them yourself or communicate them, if so?
@@theevilcottonball That's the joke, you can't, at least in the strictly rationalistic, "scientific" sense. All we have in this particular case is a "heuristic" with the weight of almost everyone throughout history's (especially those well travelled to other cultures) intuition on one side, and a few (likely, as I haven't seen the alleged evidence) cherry-picked scientific studies on the other.
"For spoken languages it has been proven concretely that they don't shape thought." yeah nah - hard disagree on that one I have no doubt that there might be several research papers now that aim to disprove the connection, but I dont have the same level of faith in Academia that I might have had when I was younger Way too many life experiences that make it obvious that language doesnt just shape, but dominates thought and worldviews
30:55 "We can read this code, but VERY few engineers out there could write it from scratch." Instead of saying why I hate this sentence, I am just going to cite Brian Kernighan here: "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
![[Zig Livecoding] TCP/UDP networking stuff](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZpqHbItPVJc/mqdefault.jpg)
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Zig Livecoding] Zine (static site generator) - https://zine-ssg.io](/img/n.gif)
For spoken languages it has been proven concretely that they don't shape thought.
But for programming languages it is a whole different case.
Because by definition there are things you CAN'T express or even are NOT ALLOWED to express in language X vs Y.
So in programming, languages DO shape thoughts, design decisions and so on.
You're going to have to expand on this, because it seems straightforwardly wrong:
"For spoken languages it has been proven concretely that they don't shape thought."
Which 'thoughts' are you having that aren't shaped by language? And how would you possibly be able to understand them yourself or communicate them, if so?
@@Dystisis idk man it's "been proven", sounds like that's it. Don't you "trust the science"? 😛
@@Michael.SMarsh But how do you prove it even?
@@theevilcottonball That's the joke, you can't, at least in the strictly rationalistic, "scientific" sense.
All we have in this particular case is a "heuristic" with the weight of almost everyone throughout history's (especially those well travelled to other cultures) intuition on one side, and a few (likely, as I haven't seen the alleged evidence) cherry-picked scientific studies on the other.
"For spoken languages it has been proven concretely that they don't shape thought."
yeah nah - hard disagree on that one
I have no doubt that there might be several research papers now that aim to disprove the connection, but I dont have the same level of faith in Academia that I might have had when I was younger
Way too many life experiences that make it obvious that language doesnt just shape, but dominates thought and worldviews
30:55 "We can read this code, but VERY few engineers out there could write it from scratch."
Instead of saying why I hate this sentence, I am just going to cite Brian Kernighan here:
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it."