Web development

I want to do something like Jennifer Dewalt but I don't know shit about HTML or CSS or Javascript or whatever. Can you point me to the right direction /prog/?

>>31
Comparing programming languages to spoken languages is like comparing apples to touhous.

>>41
Meh, more like directing to communicating. E.g. plowing to farming, shooting to spell casting.

2hrd?
When a language is used to maps and describes the execution or desired result of something, it is called a script. A script is a common media of expressing sequences that can be executed. Programing in scripts is what we do in our language, often called code. Each have their own syntax and dialect. But it is still a method communicate our desired outcome to computers, whether we expresses correctly or not.communication 101

>>42
A programming language is designed, a spoken language evolves.

>>43 Perl not only evolved, but mutated as well.

>>43
Liturgical Latin and Sanskrit were both designed languages. The vernaculars evolved, but the Liturgical languages were refined and designed to last centuries for scripture without ever changing meaning.

The fuck?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indexed_Database_API
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_SQL_Database
http://html5doctor.com/introducing-web-sql-databases/

Why was not introduced to this earlier? Actually, why did W3C drop it? It would have been an awesome idea, solving most of common dataset and bandwidth issues. I am so implementing on my current clients.

>>45
Amen! I love the fact we can design languages, and still express of computation desires with instructions.

>>45

Liturgical Latin and Sanskrit were both designed languages.

Since fucking when?

>>48
For Latin that is incorrect, but for Sankrit their might be some weight to it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit#Historical_usage

At the least it is not Korean, Esperanto, or Lobjan, which are all constructed, or scholarly influenced.

>>48,49

Since forever. Rural Latin (the shit you learn at school that no one knows how to really pronounce) and Ecclesiastical Latin are different. The latter has strictly defined meaning and rules.

Sanskrit literally means "refine speech". Vedic was the vernacular, Sanskrit the liturgical language.

>>49
Your own link explains how Sanskrit is related to Greek and Latin. It developed naturally, as did Korean. The only part of Korean that was "invented" was the writing system. Sore ja, gengo ga moji to onaji da to, ima Eigo de kaiteru. Chigau ka?

>>50
1. Codifying an existing language is not the same as inventing a new one.

2. Giving something a certain name doesn't retcon it into being the thing the name suggests. Otherwise I could become the president of France just by getting some of my friends to call me "president of France."

3. The linguistics community is pretty confident in its reconstruction of classical Latin. Though you do have to take into account that they used the name "Latin" over a period of hundreds of years, and the language they spoke in 100 BC wasn't quite the same as the one used in 400 AD.

You guys need to bone up on your fucking linguistics before you wreck yourselves.

>>51
By your logic, C evolved from English because many of C's keywords are either English or some abbreviation of an English word.

Codifying and strictly defining a language's forms, even if that language already exists or many of its elements are taken from existing languages, still counts as creating a new language, to me.

>>52
Because you're a dumb faggot.

>>52
Okay. This post is written in Scubavore, which is a language I just invented, based on English. In fact, it's completely identical to English, but you must agree with me that it's a totally different language from English because I say so.

Now behold: All of /prog/ shall join me in speaking Scubavore from now on. My language is already really popular.

>>54
http://aryion.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=22533

>>51
Don't look at me, I am just pointing the theoretical possibility. And yeah, I meant the new Korean writing system, which awesome btw. A big fan of naver hosted web comics You might need to translate that for me, the dictionary didn't help: pitecan.com/OpenPOBox/dict/data/fugodic

>>52
No 'C' evolved from ALGOL, which came from many trades and fields, as the computational language for the world, but without I/O constructs, and low level description. IoW, it comes from mathematics.

>>53
Ad Hominem.

>>52
Selamat Pagi!

I agree with >>52, and hereby accuse >>53,54 of an intellectual dishonesty akin to that most loathsome of ideas, moral relativism.

This thread is now about Jewish Secularism.

>>55
What the fuck did I just look at.

>>59
A roman to kanji database of common syllables, for Japanese.

>>60
It's Latin, not Roman.
Die in a fire cretin.

>>51
Get an IME you massive ニッガ

>>58
http://bbs.progrider.org/lounge/read/1381169519
Die, secular scum.

>>56

You might need to translate that for me, the dictionary didn't help

I was trying to say (more or less): "If spoken and written language are the same thing, then I'm writing this in English, right?"

>>64
Why would you learn Korean?

>>64
It was Japanese.

Not exactly the most appropriate language to write a sentence in when discussing Korean, but I don't happen to know any Korean. My only other option was Russian, except not really because I can barely put two words together.

>>66

>>64

...I meant >>65.

>>66
Nikita-kun? （´∀｀）

>>60,61
*ahem* Romanji:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanji
But I am fine with calling it Latinisation.

>>64
Ah, no. But were discussing the written word the whole time, weren't we? I mean, its the only way this entire conversation makes sense. I don't smell my own colour either.

>>68
I haven't seen that movie.

>>69
Well, what I should have said is that languages are spoken by default, and written language is just a special encoding of spoken language. Just to illustrate, there's no such thing as a person who hears a sentence and has to mentally translate it into writing to even begin to understand it, but if you're learning to read you do it the other way around (translating writing to speech). The point being, any time you talk about a "written language," you're really discussing the spoken language, since the particular method you use to encode it is pretty much arbitrary. You can write Japanese in the Roman alphabet, and English in Arabic, and so on. But doing so doesn't translate the Japanese words into English or the English words into Arabic.

And even if I took your comment to be about the Korean alphabet, that would be just as meaningless as >>45,50,52's awful nonsense, because your other examples were just the Roman alphabet adapted to new languages, as opposed to a new alphabet invented for an existing language.

>>70
Nobody cares about your hippie beliefs about the superiority of illiteracy.

>>71
Illiteracy is just a social construct.

>>70
Not really. Take Egyptian and Chinese for example. They still use hieroglyphs in their writing system, separate from their vernacular language. Heck, even some Kanji in Japanese has no real phono-syllabic representation, even if you form it's Hiragana.

were just the Roman alphabet adapted to new languages,

Latin, but OK. And you technically mean Indo_European, but yeah.

>>72
LOL

>>72
Social constructs are objective constructs. Unless you wanna be some fuckin sort of atheist and deny human superiority. If you were right then we'd never be able to control the physical aspects of nature.

>>74
theists=retards

>>75
That is an assignment operator.

>>73

[b][i][o]>HIEROGLYPHICS[/o][/i][/b]

Yeah, okay, there are characters which signify different things in different contexts. We have those in English spelling too. How do you pronounce "read?" What does it mean when you pronounce it that way? What if you pronounce it the other way?

What you [i]won't[/i] find is characters that have no corresponding sound but can still be used in a sentence. If you were try to invent such a character (like Prince did with his alternate name for a while) you'd find people making up sounds to go with it, because otherwise it would break language.

Latin, but OK.

People call it both "Roman" and "Latin." You know exactly which alphabet I'm talking about, regardless of which name I use.

And you technically mean Indo_European

What? Do you mean to say that "being written in the Roman alphabet" is part of the definition of language in the Indo-European family? Sanskrit, Farsi, and Russian are Indo-European, but they use other writing systems. Vietnamese uses the Roman alphabet. Japanese is not related to Chinese, whereas Tibetan is — but instead of Chinese characters, Tibetan uses a Brahmic script.

Writing systems have nothing to do with language families. They are unrelated concepts in linguistics.

>>77
屁话！
Not all languages have morpheme. Some languages, like the ones I mentioned, were only used in the written form, like math. And people adapt their method of pronunciation, if it is necessary (which in SI groups, it is).

Because Anglican comes from morpheme derived communication, the entire English language is a phono-syllabic script. It has hole grammar holes, like your 'rædan' tense example. Unlike analytic languages, written systems should not have the same faults.

Writing systems have nothing to do with language families. They are unrelated concepts in linguistics.

Agreed. Why did >>41,43,51,64 bring spoken languages into the subject, when we were talking about constructed languages, and how they are an awesome inception, like computer ones are?

Is it because >>31 mistyped "speaking" when he should have placed "writing"?

>>78

Not all languages have morpheme.

AAAARGGGHHH!!!

Some languages, like the ones I mentioned, were only used in the written form, like math.

[b][i]AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!![/i][/b]

Why did >>41,43,51,64 bring spoken languages into the subject

You mean >>48,51,64? Because >>41 and >>43 weren't me.

>>41 is right, though. The word "language" is overloaded to mean many different things, and you've been confused by the name into thinking they are all the same thing. For comparison, a "log" is not necessarily made of wood. There's pretty much no way you could ever use a log of pine in an application which calls for a log of an IRC channel. Likewise, it would never make sense for a human to try to speak in C++ (which is not a human language) or for a programming language to have all the same grammar and vocabulary as English.

A constructed regular language (the kind acceptable as input to a finite state automaton) is not impressive, because it is trivial to implement. A constructed human language is impressive, because it's expressive enough to hold a conversation in. You can communicate information using math, but you could not hold a conversation in math.

>>79

but you could not hold a conversation in math.

Maybe your tiny whitey brain can't, but that don't mean you should generalize to other people.