SCOUG-Programming Mailing List Archives
Return to [ 05 |
January |
2005 ]
Content Type: text/plain
Peter Skye wrote:
>Zdenek Jizba wrote:
>
>
>>The language of mathematics therefore has had more time to evolve.
>>Today, when studying astrophysics or quantum physics, the language
>>is totally incomprehensible to all except to those that spent years
>>studying partial differential equations, non-euclidean geometry and
>>whatever math quantum physicists use. Yet there are no complaints
>>about the readability of equations. So I suppose that one
>>knowledgeable in a particular programming language (APL for me)
>>should not feel defensive as long as the language solves all
>>problems that the individual encounters.
>>
>>
>
>Jizba, I like this point of view. And you may have identified, at least
>for me, one major difficulty of "choosing a language".
>
>There are two different needs. One is that of the programmer, the one
>that Lynn wants to satisfy, the need that you point out as being
>satisfied by the tool that solves the problems encountered.
>
>The other is the need of an organization. This language must be
>readable by many, and such a requirement tends to exclude some of our
>own favorite tools (PL/I and APL come to mind for many "Type C"
>organizations) simply because most people have no experience with them.
>
>I look forward to the next Programming SIG so I can see what directions
>around a 360 degree circle (or are we talking rays of a sphere here?)
>each of us individually wants to go.
>
>- Peter
>
>
>
Peter,
Your positive reaction to my comments is encouraging me to add a few
more
thoughts. I often think of the fact that in the early automobile years
most drivers
knew all about their engines. They knew how to fix problems when their car
stopped in the middle of a trip. Today, most drives have no idea how their
engine works under the hood. In a similar way, the early computing languages
assumed that programmers knew about the way a computer works. They thought
in terms of bits, words and word boundaries (although this was new with
the IBM
360-- with the IBM 1401 we used wordmarks to delimit words a feature that I
was very sorry to see disappear). Today your comments about bits, words and
word boundaries (I am not even sure anymore of the terminology) go over the
head of most computer users. Why learn programming languages since most
applications that one might want to use are available as commercial
software.
So when I hear about programming SIG, my attitude leans toward having
features where I tell the computer what I want done, and I don't care
how the
computer works out the process as long as I get the right answers. We are a
long way from that situation now but I pay attention to any discussion
aiming in that direction.
>
>=====================================================
>
>To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message
>to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,
>put the command "unsubscribe scoug-programming".
>
>For problems, contact the list owner at
>"rollin@scoug.com".
>
>=====================================================
>
>
>
>
>
=====================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message
to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,
put the command "unsubscribe scoug-programming".
For problems, contact the list owner at
"rollin@scoug.com".
=====================================================
Return to [ 05 |
January |
2005 ]
The Southern California OS/2 User Group
P.O. Box 26904
Santa Ana, CA 92799-6904, USA
Copyright 2001 the Southern California OS/2 User Group. ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED.
SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group.
OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International
Business Machines Corporation.
All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.
|
