logography

The process of coding something into APL's idiosyncratic logography can only happen after the idea is already clear by other means.

The alphabet is a pretty awesome invention (alphabet > kana-style syllabary > kanji-style logography) but English writing is at least as complex as JP writing, just in different dimensions.

Mayan broke its logography into CV syllables (much akin to how Japanese derived the kana from kanji).

China can't just adopt a simple to compute writing system any more easily than English Speakers could adopt a complex logography.

These may just be examples of pre-existing knowledge being encoded into APL logography.

After pre-existing thoughts are translated into APL's logography, there does not seem to be any demonstrable enhancement of the ability to reason about algorithms.

English's primary strength over other European languages is its use of logography.

This is why all writing systems tend towards Logography and why phonetic writing fanatics like you have to completely rehaul your orthography every couple of generations.

Really helps my point about logography more.

In other words, Chinese may have been a rare language in that conversion from a logography to a syllabary would not have dramatically reduced the amount of characters one would have had to have learned.

'The process of coding something into APL's idiosyncratic logography can only happen after the idea is already clear by other means.' In fact, often I will write something in APL before translating it to other languages, not the other way round.

And his own documentation of his development does expressly indicate that he started trying to build a logography, realized that there were too many symbols that had to be created, and instead simplified it into a syllabary, which was much more conservative in its character count.

My immediate thought is this could help out Mayan orthography, which is notably “computer proof”, even though it’s a mixed logography.