MFMISTAL@HMARL5.BITNET.UUCP (02/26/87)
Seth Steinberg proposes to use less formal notations in computer science presentations. I disagree completely! His argument about clarity is wrong. Although architects do not use mathematical notations, they do use a symbolic language (DRAWINGS or even better the lines that constitue a drawing) to express their ideas. These drawings, together with a description in specific "jargon" are necessary for the contractor to make a proper cost estimate and to make the necessary calculations for the strength of the constructions. So even for them it is necessary to use a formal language. I believe a formal language is useful to communicate ideas in a certain domain also in CS. Since the basic operations of computers are indeed logical/mathematical ones, there is no objection against using their symbolic notations. Computer programs are inplementations of the stuff, computer science is made of. Unfortunately, we have to check program code to check what the program is doing. Just for that reason, debugging and software maintenance is expensive. When we can better formalize the "art of programming" we might come up with better understood, and more easy to maintain programs. Discussions about program performance might then just as well be done in the formal language for that formalization. I just remembered that a language like APL is closely related with mathematics, specifically in matrixalgebra. It is probably possible to formaly proof (at least to some extent) the correctness of such a program. Looking forward to more CS presentations using formal (mathematical and logical notations) in order to increase the understanding what is really ment. Jan L. Talmon (not a computer scientist) MFMISTAL@HMARL5.BITNET ReSent-Date: Sun 1 Mar 87 19:12:47-PST ReSent-From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA.#Internet> ReSent-To: post-ailist@UCBVAX.Berkeley.EDU.#Internet ReSent-Message-ID: <12283054358.12.LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA> 2