Re: [tlug] [REMINDER] "Defending the Creative Commons"

[Martin Baehr <mbaehr@example.com>]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 08:58:39AM +0100, patrick.niessen@example.com wrote:
> Does anybody have a side by side comparison of languages so that we can
> choose the one that fits our needs best?  I am interested in performance
> criteria like:
> 
> - length of time needed to convey a meaning
> - accuracy
> - reading speed
> - writing speed
> - compression
> - beauty
> - poetry
> - processor (brain) use
> - convenience
> ...
> 
> After such an objective test 

well, some of the above can't really be tested objectively (beauty,
convenience?)

but things like accuracy can and have been tested by translation.
tranlate a test to the language you want to test, and have a different
person translate it back. the greater the similarity between the
original text and the retranslation, the greater the accuracy of the
intermediate language. such tests have shown that e.g. esperanto is a lot
more accurate than other languages tested.

but then sometimes inaccuracy is wanted (e.g. in jokes :-)

greetings, martin.
-- 
interested in doing pike programming, sTeam/caudium/pike/roxen training,      
sTeam/caudium/roxen and/or unix system administration anywhere in the world.
--
pike programmer     working in europe                             csl-gmbh.net
                    open-steam.org     (www.archlab|(www|db).hb2).tuwien.ac.at
unix                bahai.or.at                       iaeste.(tuwien.ac|or).at
systemadministrator (stuts|black.linux-m68k).org        is.(schon.org|root.at)
Martin Bähr         http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/