RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Ok by me.  Systems for choosing the means of choosing, 
or conserving maximum freedom of choice by  
choosing wisely:  if the choice here is to 
pick a winner, over enabling choice among 
alternatives focused on particular aspects, 
my employer picks whatever Microsoft implements so 
the local mammals will not waste organizational 
resources thinking about the solution while 
making a buck from the user instead of passing 
it to them.

Len 

4) I must respectfully disagree w/ Mr. Bullard when he says,

On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:18:15 Len Bullard wrote:
>
>Yes: systems for choosing.  If there is only one, 
>there is no ambiguity.  But is that a good thing? 
>I think it an attractive thing to mammal brains 
>that strive for closure instinctively and crave 
>power and esteem physically, but a bad 
>thing for systems that reciprocally evolve environments.
>

I think the mammals' requirements take precedence.  Systems will evolve in
healthier ways when the people that write and use them don't waste a lot of
what I call "organizational bandwidth" discussing arcana like ambiguity
resolution algorithms.  That discussion needs adequate resolution here on
this list - or someplace like it.  Please don't pass the buck to the users.