ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) (11/19/89)
# In article <5172@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) writes:
# >
# >It's a shame that people homed in on the second sentence rather than the
# >first.
#
# Why? What is wrong with discussing this? Does it bother you
# that people disagree with you? Perhaps your statement was
# wrong? Perhaps my statements were wrong? I would like to
# learn. The way to do that is talk about it.
No -- it's because the first sentence indicated that I too want to learn. It
said, in effect, "show me how something can be done". The second sentence
said, in effect, "unless someone does I will assume it can't be done"
[Unfortunately, given my gift with the English language, I used the word "toy"
in the second sentence which provoked petulant replies of the "it is not a
toy!" variety rather than of the "Let me understand what you want done and
I'll show you how to do it" variety].
# You have not provided any evidence to support your claim.
I didn't know there was a Theorem on the floor. I thought I was trying to
help people understand something.
# I stand by my claim that one can write forth in any language and
# have it behave identically. Further, it doesn't matter how much
# of it is written in the base language (asm, c, or whatever) and
# how much is in forth.
But you HAVE made a claim for which I have seen no evidence.
===========
The choice of a programming language is a subjective one. A programming
language is complex -- and it is not usually clear what combination of its
properties accounts for its power. It may not even be clear, in a formal
sense, what the properties are or how they balance to provide what the
programmer perceives to be a sense of "rightness".
The task of trying to explain why you perceive a language to be powerful to
someone who uses another language is something like the task of explaining why
filet mignon is delicious to someone whose only experience with beef is the
hamburger. [Well, actually, I guess I'm assuming your language is Forth!]
Suppose he says "The only difference between filet mignon and a hamburger is
that filet mignon is not chopped". All you can say is, "I know its not
chopped, but my tastebuds tell me there is more to it than that." Probably
even a food chemist could not say why filet mignon tastes better than ground
<whatever-it-is> -- and what a food chemist says about food is not likely to
enhance our appreciation of its taste. [The way things are going, I bet this
statement will cause the next month of comp.lang.forth to be devoted to food
chemistry!]
Eventually you realize that, while it might be somewhat interesting to talk
about the food you have tasted, there is no substitute for supplying the
addresses of some restaurants and have the other person taste for himself. He
may come back saying that he prefers hamburgers because of the lettuce,
pickles, special sauce, and sesame seed bun -- and the fact that the golden
arches can be found everywhere in the world (Americans have a knack of
exporting the best of their culture!) -- but at least he will know how filet
mignon tastes.
John J Wavrik
jjwavrik@ucsd.edu Dept of Math C-012
Univ of Calif - San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093