Python is the most popular language

http://blog.codeeval.com/codeevalblog/2015

>>40

Your notion that an
encoding standard
AND EACH AND EVERY LIBRARY THAT READS AND/OR WRITES IT ARE THE FUCKING VERY SAME THING is fucking WRONG.
EVERY LIBRARY THAT READS AND/OR WRITES IT

Just think for a moment on what UTF-8 relies. Unicorns? Goodwill? Some kind of magic it runs on? Could it be code? Maybe some abstract interface? Maybe it consists of..unicode libraries?
Now, remove these libraries, and UTF-8 becomes an autistic fantasy, without concrete implementation and ecosystem of libraries it will never be a standard or even a convention.
Abstracting UTF-8 from the implementation is the classic reification fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#Vicious_abstractionism
William James used the notion of "vicious abstractionism" and "vicious intellectualism" in various places, especially to critique Immanuel Kant's and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's idealistic philosophies. In The Meaning of Truth, James wrote:

Let me give the name of "vicious abstractionism" to a way of using concepts which may be thus described: We conceive a concrete situation by singling out some salient or important feature in it, and classing it under that; then, instead of adding to its previous characters all the positive consequences which the new way of conceiving it may bring, we proceed to use our concept privatively; reducing the originally rich phenomenon to the naked suggestions of that name abstractly taken, treating it as a case of "nothing but" that concept, and acting as if all the other characters from out of which the concept is abstracted were expunged. Abstraction, functioning in this way, becomes a means of arrest far more than a means of advance in thought. … The viciously privative employment of abstract characters and class names is, I am persuaded, one of the great original sins of the rationalistic mind.[7]

>>41

Abstraction, functioning in this way, becomes a means of arrest far more than a means of advance in thought

And that is supposed to be so because what? Because some retard said so? The concrete mind is the sign of a caveman.

The Meaning of Truth
https://archive.org/stream/themeaningoftrut00jameuoft/themeaningoftrut00jameuoft_djvu.txt
But if our own private vision of the paper be con
sidered in abstraction from every other event,
as if it constituted by itself the universe (and
it might perfectly well do so, for aught we can
understand to the contrary), then the paper
seen and the seeing of it are only two names for
one indivisible fact which, properly named,
is the datum, the phenomenon, or the experi
ence. The paper is in the mind and the mind
is around the paper, because paper and mind
are only two names that are given later to the
one experience, when, taken in a larger world
of which it forms a part, its connections
are traced in different directions.
The opponent here will ask : Has not the
knowing of truth any substantive value on its
own account, apart from the collateral advan
tages it may bring ? And if you allow theoretic
satisfactions to exist at all, do they not crowd
the collateral satisfactions out of house and
home, and must not pragmatism go into
bankruptcy, if she admits them at all ? The
destructive force of such talk disappears as
soon as we use words concretely instead of
abstractly, and ask, in our quality of good
pragmatists, just what the famous theoretic
needs are known as and in what the intellect-
ual satisfactions consist.
Are they not all mere matters of consistency
- and emphatically not of consistency between \
an absolute reality and the mind s copies of it, ] but of actually felt consistency among judg
ments, objects, and habits of reacting, in the
minds own experienceable world? And are/
not both our need of such consistency and
our pleasure in it conceivable as outcomes of
the natural fact that we are beings that do
develop mental habits habit itself proving \
adaptively beneficial in an environment where
the same objects, or the same kinds of objects, /
recur.

>>43
The Dubs court hereby proclaims it absolutely and inescapably necessary for any further inquiries into the aforeposted text that you completely unwrap any and all text lines in the aforementioned text.

>>44

inescapably

"inexorably"

unwrap my anus

>>42
Cavemen built the civilization you live in today. Can you say the same about the pseudointellectual fucktards dreaming about abstract bullshite?

Concrete mind = Builds the future
Abstract = Spends day whining on /prog/

It's called concrete because that's how hard your heads are made out of. It's called abstract because that's the type of thought you do.

You people don't even rise to the status of monkeys. Horses or mules perhaps.

Lets replace UTF-8 by God(an abstract standard of a deity).
The believers use an interface(a holy book) which defines functions(such as proper prayer) to communicate with the deity.
From the believers perspective the standard exists on its own and is an absolute truth, disconnected from their common belief which is the only concrete content, the locus of the religion and the reason that the abstraction(God) treated as constant and absolute truth.
The common will of thousands of developers to support and maintain unicode libraries is what keeps the standard alive.
Standards are however just ideas of a proper world we desire to exist. They're abstractions(a perfect God), their implementation(one true religion) is the interface to more concrete abstraction(rituals) with which the believers interact with reality itself(the hardware) oblivious to the fact they create, refine and maintain the abstraction itself.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation
Nothing prevents you from creating your own unicode with blackjack and hookers. Just write an encoding/decoding library, a couple of starter fonts and some documentation.
The challenge is that private abstractions hold as much authority as imaginary friends vs standard Gods. To make your onetruecode a standard, you need to make the believers reject their standard and adopt your own. The common will of crowds follows the easy path and keeps the old traditions alive, despite newer abstractions being superior,guided by the organizations(the Church, The Unicode consortium,The Khronos Group) which are interested in perpetuating their power and influence, as the final authority to decide which forms and abstractions are true, since their existence is the driving force behind the "common will". So onetruecode cannot unseat the old one easily. Authority organization needs to be infiltrated from within, disbanded or replaced by another for a competing abstraction to be adopted. The standards committees,groups and organizations are essentially niche single-party states which stifle innovation by rejecting outside influence(e.g. OpenGL vs Vulkan, which was created as reaction to Mantle and DX12, both of which threatened OpenGL relevance).

>>41
By your logic, there is exactly zero difference between mathematical theorems and the printing press which prints books which lay out the theorems.

>>51
There is no difference between mathematical theorems and their implementation in books.
A mathematical theorem is abstraction of specific implementation of specific mathematician specific ideas about specific field of mathematics. What you see as some "religious absolute truth, divine abstraction, the perfect form" for the creator of the theory is just a piece of code he made up on tuesday and made generic.

>>47
I laughed, thanks.

>>48
Concrete mind builds sneakers and jeans in a sweatshop, or walls at a construction site.

>>53
I assure you "concrete minds" can understand abstraction, in fact they understand its internals and operate on lower-level, while those operating with the interface of the abstraction, calling it "the abstraction" are oblivious to its content, unless helpfully deconstructed by a "concrete mind".

>>54
I don't trust your assurances because they do not correlate with my experiences. Or these dubs.

Just today I had to do a few changes in our Python and JS codebases. I felt like having my eye poked and both hands cut off.... Where are the freakin' types?!?! The code was written by somebody else and trying to do anything feels like walking on a minefield.... And it's not like the Python compiler helps with anything - it just compiles whatever non-sense.

>>52
bullshiting so hard