cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (07/10/89)
In article <1395@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >It is why I execrate most of the present assembler languages. Notation is >very important. For example, I consider the introduction of algebraic >symbols by Diophantus as one of the really great contributions to >mathematical communication. Sure. And C probably sucks from that perspective. The question is, what are YOU going to do about it? However, I take issue with the idea that "notation is all you need". I've seen a few cases where compactness is used for compactness's sake, at the expense of communication. Programs are not only for programming a machine, but for communication to other readers of the program. >I think of making similar operations such as frexp, divrem, exponentiation, >absolute value, integer part, etc., machine independently coded in C. >I would not consider coding the =UP above in C. It is an additional >primitive operation, like +, *, /, &. What symbols? APL characters? Do it, we don't care. Program in Methematica if you have to. C is guilty of all such charges. So what? >I have yet to see a fair compiler. You haven't been looking nearly hard enough. >Also, computer language and system people seem prone to taking standard >mathematical symbols and using them for other purposes, even to the extent >that the standard use is precluded by it. Who says what "standard use" is? Stop programming in a systems language, and you might find that you get "standard mathematical use". >Whatever is appropriate. But the C preprocessor, or any other present >macro language in my ken, will not do it. A macro template processor, >in which the macro "name" is scattered through the macro, and which is >weakly typed and may even use storage classes, would do the job. So build one and shut up. Or better yet, shut up first, then build one. > c{'z} ={t} {-}{|} a{'x} OP{m} {|} b{'y} {/\{~}w} I must say, I haven't a clue what this means. Every time I've seen this, my eyes glaze over and my pulse drops to nothing. I become a zombie. It'd sad, really. This example excess terse. >Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 My central thesis on this issue remains the same. Dr Rubin wants something customized to his desires for free. He ain't gonna get it. TAANSTAFL. He should interest someone in CS at Purdue in his gripes. Who knows? Maybe he'll get something really nifty happening, and he'll have the pleasure of telling all of us snivelling low-life slime just how right he was. Then again, maybe he's Bogus as HELL. Only time and effort on his part will convince us otherwise. Reminds me of an Arab saying: "If one man calls you an ass, ignore him. If twenty men call you an ass, buy yourself a saddle." Frankly, I think that Dr Rubin's remarks on this topic are ignorant, over- bearing, and arrogant, and while I don't expect him to earn a CS degree in his spare time, I DO expect him to do better than whine about something without a clear understanding of all of the issues involved. The ONLY alternative is to prove conventional wisdom wrong by doing what we claim to be impossible. -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta.UUCP University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/11/89)
Dr. Rubin wants Smalltalk...
| DivMod: divisor
^ (self / divisor) @ self % divisor
Or Forth...
: /mod 2dup / >r mod r> ;
Or APL (no, I won't attempt to define it)...
But not C.
--
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "try out a seldom-used feature
Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | of C -- the ``comment''."
Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | -- David Gelhar.dave@celerity.uucp (Dave Smith) (07/11/89)
In article <2367@pembina.UUCP> cdshaw@pembina.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: > [Chris Shaw writes an excellent article expressing the way he feels about > Herman Rubin's constant bitchin' and whinin' about what terrible things > compilers are] Amen! Herman, put up or shut up. I've seen lots of articles out of you putting down current languages and saying that everyone should go back to assembler. I find current languages suitable, although not perfect, for what I do: systems programming. If you think you have better ideas for language and machine design for mathematical programming, put your ideas in a coherent form (not a diatribe against C, FORTRAN, or RISC architectures) and then get some other people to look at them; people who understand what you want to do (mathematicians) and people who understand how to do them (computer programmers and computer engineers). They'll either see the light or tell you you're full of it. If they tell you you're full of it, you can either believe them or put some of your _OWN_ time and money into making a system you like. Do us all a favor. Stop complaining about how terrible current things are, get your ideas together and explain why you want things to be the way you want them. Putting out your ideas for public review is going to be difficult, because you won't be able to satisfy everyone and there will be people who try to use things for purposes which they are not intended for and then bitch and moan about the results. Sound familiar Herman? It's much easier to criticize than it is to create. David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celerity!dave "Repent, Harlequin!," said the TickTock Man
ttwang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Thomas Wang) (07/11/89)
Instead of inventing a new notation such as a , b = x / y; I think the following approach is more 'high-level', and cleaner. Implement an ADT called 'list'. Then have the divide subroutine return the list.
jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger) (07/12/89)
In article <2367@pembina.UUCP> cdshaw@pembina.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: >In article <361@celit.UUCP>, dave@celerity (Dave Smith) writes: >>Amen! Herman, put up or shut up. I'd like to third that motion. Herman, I'm tired of discourse the quality of which I'm sure you wouldn't tolerate in your rankest graduate student. Please take Chris and Dave's advice. Otherwise you're writing for an audience of one. -- Jon --