&gt;&gt; the Shapir&#x2F;Worf hypothesis: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Linguistic_relativity" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Linguistic_relativity</a>
&gt;That&#x27;s an interesting point, but on the other hand I&#x27;m still not convinced that this means that having a lot of distinct languages is &quot;better&quot;. While on the other hand, there would be clear benefits to everyone speaking the same language or having at least one common language.<p>Would the computer world be &quot;better&quot; if anyone standardize on one single programming language (e.g. java) 
or is it &quot;better&quot; that different languages are there, ( dartmouth basic , javascript, python, lisp, haskell or perl) so you can code differently ?<p>As for the universal language, Esperanto tried: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Esperanto" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Esperanto</a>
a nice documentary about it: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;esperantodocumentary.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;about-the-film" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;esperantodocumentary.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;about-the-film</a>