131–140 of 301 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What? Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The courts have to evaluate what they think the law's drafters meant: Yeah, it says this, but it's obvious the legislators didn't mean for it to be read that way. It'd be nice if there were footnotes that expounded on what the authors were trying to accomplish to help courts interpret the laws.
At least in the US, it's not the drafters' intent that matters, but the intent of the legislators who voted on it. (Legislators actually have lawmaking power. Drafters are usually unelected staff or even lobbyists.) When a statute is ambiguous, courts do sometimes look at the congressional record (eg floor debates) to determine intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
goofy; the language you're talking about is Catalan of Catalonia, not `catala`. > Just googling things about it is going to be hard when you're looking for docs on go do you google just "go"? edit: fine, it's called catalá in catalonian itself - this is so pedantic now that i might as well at this point say that the missing diacritic is sufficient to disambiguate.
> when you're looking for docs on go do you google just "go"? I wouldn't use Go as a good example of naming a language. It worked out because the language had the weight of Google behind it, but it's still awkward that you have to use a different name when searching for things than you do at other times.
this is called the no true scotsman fallacy - "I'm still right in XYZ case because XYZ isn't a real instance of ABC (the thing I'm making a claim about)"
For years I've tried to convince my lawyer friend that something exactly like this would be great to have, and then it turns out to have existed probably all the time. I think this is truly awesome. Every law should be written in a language like this, and presented publicly with syntax highlighting and consistent formatting rules. Then it should be made part of the school curriculum to learn the law language. I belie…
Although in principle I agree with you, the law generally depends too much on interpretation and precedent to be expressed and understood like you’re hoping for.
The judiciary should keep it up-to-date.
For years I've tried to convince my lawyer friend that something exactly like this would be great to have, and then it turns out to have existed probably all the time. I think this is truly awesome. Every law should be written in a language like this, and presented publicly with syntax highlighting and consistent formatting rules. Then it should be made part of the school curriculum to learn the law language. I belie…
In reality, laws are already written in a relatively normal language, and the words almost always mean exactly what they mean in plain English. The only problem is that the legal concepts they describe are themselves complex, and often they end up in a tangle of references to other laws and regulations and legal precedent etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when you're looking for docs on go do you google just "go"? I wouldn't use Go as a good example of naming a language. It worked out because the language had the weight of Google behind it, but it's still awkward that you have to use a different name when searching for things than you do at other times.
> I wouldn't use Go as a good example of naming a language. It worked out because the language had the weight of Google behind it this is called the no true scotsman fallacy - "I'm still right in XYZ case because XYZ isn't a real instance of ABC (the thing I'm making a claim about)"
All I said is that Go, specifically, is an awkward name that probably shouldn't be used to justify further awkward names.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wouldn't use Go as a good example of naming a language. It worked out because the language had the weight of Google behind it this is called the no true scotsman fallacy - "I'm still right in XYZ case because XYZ isn't a real instance of ABC (the thing I'm making a claim about)"
No, it's not, because I didn't make a universal claim about anything. A No True Scotsman fallacy must follow a overly-broad No Scotsman statement. All I said is that Go, specifically, is an awkward name that probably shouldn't be used to justify further awkward names.
I know that naming is hard, and it has already been mentioned in the comments here but... I can't believe that somebody named a programming language with the exact same name as an existing natural language spoken by millions of people. It just seems like a bizarre decision that can't be a benefit at all and can only have negative consequences. Just googling things about it is going to be hard. Why immediately create…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not, because I didn't make a universal claim about anything. A No True Scotsman fallacy must follow a overly-broad No Scotsman statement. All I said is that Go, specifically, is an awkward name that probably shouldn't be used to justify further awkward names.
[flagged]