home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!lyapunov.ucsd.edu!mbk
- From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
- Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
- Message-ID: <180ignINN60q@network.ucsd.edu>
- Date: 1 Sep 92 20:06:47 GMT
- References: <BEVAN.92Aug31101447@tiger.cs.man.ac.uk>
- Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
- Lines: 66
- NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
- X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
-
- bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) writes:
- : Despite what the CS gurus say, allowing the introduction of
- : additional functions is not the same thing.
- :
- : Semantically it is, and that is what really counts.
-
- Well that just about sums up the schism here.
-
- Scientist computer not bit one syntax about care.
-
-
- : Some languages do allow you to define infix operators (Haskell and ML),
- : but there are very few that allow you to define distfix syntax.
- : Of those that do they are either quite old or designed for completely
- : different purposes than numerical work. Also a problem with distix is
- : that it is very easy to get ambiguities and unless you are going to
- : introduce some user defined precedence (which I'm not even sure would
- : solve the problem), the only solution is to put parentheses around
- : phrases.
-
- Yeah, so deal with it!
-
- : Once you do this, you might as well be using a prefix or
- : posfix only language.
-
-
- : Also, mathematicians and scientists are accustomed to using
- : whatever syntax they like, as long as it does not lead to confusion.
- :
- : Confusion for who? I get very confused when I read books that use
- : |A| to mean three different things depending on the context (which
- : isn't always immediately obvious). With all due respect to
- : mathematicians and scientists, just because they are accustomed to
- : creating syntax on the fly, it doesn't meant that they are any good at
- : it (where "good" is totally subjective, but I'll take it to mean that
- : other people find it readable and better (another subjective term)
- : than anything else). For example, I'm sure Frege thought he had a
- : great notation for his logical formulae, but IMHO (and with plenty of
- : hindsight :-) it was needlessly complicated.
-
- I think it would be nice to "import" a set of syntax rules for whatever
- particular domain you're using, so as to make programming in that domain
- easiest. It won't make compiler writing easiest, but then again,
- we have our biases, and we don't care that much how hard that task is.
- :-)
-
- : This extends to CS people as well, there seems to be something inside
- : most of them that drives them to invent a "new" language even though
- : it rarely has anything new in it. It usually consists of a different
- : permutation of symbols to describe the same semantics that underlies
- : thousands of other languages. (There are a some languages that warrant
- : the title "new", but they are very few and far between)
-
- This is the singularity at the core of the problem.
-
- Computer scientists have this bias that the choosing the
- particular permutation of symbols (how disparaging!) is either trivial
- or irrelevant.
-
- : bevan
-
- --
- -Matt Kennel mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
- -Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
- -*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
- -*** lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
-