🚀 go-pugleaf

: From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
: Message-ID: <Bxpoy9.GD6@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
::: Nobody except a computer programmer can read it at all!
:: The similar complaint that "those statisticians and their screwey
:: sums-over and chi-squares and their standard deviations!  [...]"
:: [...] is false.
: Students in statistics courses have little problem with the notation
: you have mentioned

So, Herman agrees with me about statistics notations.  I wonder what
reasons he might have to continue to DISagree with me about programming
notations, since students in computer courses have little problem with
the notations taught therein.

: A biologist does not need so much to be fluent in statistical jargon
: to work in population genetics as to learn basic probability, and some
: basic statistics, 

But if that biologist is going to talk to statisticians about novel
applications and novel methods, it *will* be necessary to learn more
than these rudiments.  Similarly, if a statistician attempting to
help this biologist needs to develop new computer applications beyond
canned applications, that statistician will have to learn more than
is common about computer jargon.

::: And what is one supposed to do if the hardware operations wanted are
::: not even expressible in the language?
:: Use another language (or implementation).
: Bob Silverman and those working with him use huge gobs of computer time.
: They cannot get the language or implementation needed. 

Nonsense.  Assembly language *at* *least* has direct access to all of
the hardware operations.  If no assembler exists for the machine, I'm
sure that one could be built quickly and cheaply.  And with infix
operator syntax if desired.

If Herman means he can't get a custom-designed language system for
peanuts, somehow I'm not surprised, and I doubt that the reason is
some conspiracy of language implementors to deny him the tools he wants.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw