<h2>Yes, but why?</h2>

<p>Constructed languages would be better for machine communication than natural languages because languages evolve based on how people use them but machines have some difficulties learning how to interpret those changes. With a fully constructed language, the machine can understand exactly what things mean because all of the rules and details are well document and not allowed to change through natural processes.</p>

<p>However, machines already communicate by sending data in specified formats; why would using a constructed language be beneficial in any way?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-08T14:11:17.567Z
One can say such languages already exists. Famous examples could be JSON or XML.
RedClover
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-08T14:12:27.290Z
@labela--gotoa Hm that's a very good point, thanks for the comment!
hyperneutrino
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-08T14:06:38.307Z
2018-02-08T14:06:38.307Z
hyperneutrino
<p>Rick Morneau has a <a href="http://www.rickmor.x10.mx/lexical_semantics.html" rel="noreferrer">conlang</a> designed to be suitable as both a machine translation interlingua and as a medium of communication. And two Facebook AIs apparently spontaneously <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-artificial-intelligence-ai-chatbot-new-language-research-openai-google-a7869706.html" rel="noreferrer">constructed</a> their own mutual language. FWIW.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T14:41:01.500Z
2018-02-10T14:41:01.500Z
aruslanovych
<p>While it would technically be "possible" to design a human-modelled language for a computer, it's impractical; machines already communicate using sets of binary symbols, so to speak. Applications on a computer, for example, use an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_binary_interface" rel="nofollow noreferrer">application binary interface</a> (ABI) to relay information and call functions (etc etc) from one another. As there are many different ABIs that may or may not be mutually compatible, you can say that there already are several machine languages in active use, and many more extinct ones (by merit of their machines no longer being in use).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-27T17:56:02.797Z
I've always seen such interfaces call API's (application programming interface).
IRTFM
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-08T14:08:36.843Z
2018-02-08T14:08:36.843Z
Darkgamma
<p>There is a constructed language, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Interaction_Language" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ROILA (RObot Interaction LAnguage)</a> designed for human–robot interaction. I see no conceptual problem in using this language for robot–robot interaction as well and I can imagine the use of such a language instead of electronic impulses as a requirement for some challenges in robotics like football playing teams of robots.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-05T12:57:41.103Z
2018-09-05T12:57:41.103Z
Sir Cornflakes
<p>On <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia page</a> we can read that constructed language is devised for human or human-like communication. Given the fact, that there are already some constructed language examples for human-computer communication such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban#Applications" rel="noreferrer">Lojban</a>, can constructed language be created by humans for machine-machine communication? Or it won't be a constructed language anymore?</p>

<p>One example could include a <a href="https://movies.stackexchange.com/q/45579/1799">Droidspeak code</a> (the fictional language spoken by droids).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-12T18:04:40.197Z
Don't understand why this question was downvoted. Just because the answer is 'no', that doesn't mean that it should be downvoted.
Duncan
<machine-communication>
Can a conlang be used for machine-machine communication?
# Can a conlang be used for machine-machine communication?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-02-08)

On [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language) we can read that constructed language is devised for human or human-like communication. Given the fact, that there are already some constructed language examples for human-computer communication such as [Lojban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban#Applications), can constructed language be created by humans for machine-machine communication? Or it won't be a constructed language anymore?

One example could include a [Droidspeak code](https://movies.stackexchange.com/q/45579/1799) (the fictional language spoken by droids).

**Tags:** machine-communication

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Don't understand why this question was downvoted. Just because the answer is 'no', that doesn't mean that it should be downvoted.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-02-08. Score: 5

## Yes, but why?

Constructed languages would be better for machine communication than natural languages because languages evolve based on how people use them but machines have some difficulties learning how to interpret those changes. With a fully constructed language, the machine can understand exactly what things mean because all of the rules and details are well document and not allowed to change through natural processes.

However, machines already communicate by sending data in specified formats; why would using a constructed language be beneficial in any way?

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: One can say such languages already exists. Famous examples could be JSON or XML.  
> **username_2**: @labela--gotoa Hm that's a very good point, thanks for the comment!  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-02-10. Score: 5

Rick Morneau has a [conlang](http://www.rickmor.x10.mx/lexical_semantics.html) designed to be suitable as both a machine translation interlingua and as a medium of communication. And two Facebook AIs apparently spontaneously [constructed](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-artificial-intelligence-ai-chatbot-new-language-research-openai-google-a7869706.html) their own mutual language. FWIW.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2018-02-08. Score: 4

While it would technically be "possible" to design a human-modelled language for a computer, it's impractical; machines already communicate using sets of binary symbols, so to speak. Applications on a computer, for example, use an [application binary interface](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_binary_interface) (ABI) to relay information and call functions (etc etc) from one another. As there are many different ABIs that may or may not be mutually compatible, you can say that there already are several machine languages in active use, and many more extinct ones (by merit of their machines no longer being in use).

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: I've always seen such interfaces call API's (application programming interface).  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2018-09-05. Score: 1

There is a constructed language, [ROILA (RObot Interaction LAnguage)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Interaction_Language) designed for human–robot interaction. I see no conceptual problem in using this language for robot–robot interaction as well and I can imagine the use of such a language instead of electronic impulses as a requirement for some challenges in robotics like football playing teams of robots.


---

