[bllguo]

uh, what? once we're talking about simplified vs. traditional it should already be clear that the discussion is about the languages in terms of written form? in fact the entire article makes clear that it is about written language.

Not using "information" in a scientifically proper way is a fine criticism, I just don't understand why you seem to think the author did not define "efficiency" when it is one of the first points made..

re: simplified chinese, i guess im bad at searching? care to provide a review paper?