🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <722061187@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>: 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.

The students in these statistics courses are very definitely NOT statistics
students.  Most statistics students are graduate students, and these methods
courses are not required, nor even recommended.

>: 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.

Novel applications are no problem.  Novel methods are not going to be
developed by biologists as biologists.  

The statistician will need numerical analysis jargon.  That computer 
jargon diverges from this is essentially a move on the part of the
computer language designers to distance themselves from mathematics.
They have been too succesful in this.

>::: 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.

Dik Winter uses computers a lot more, and is quite accustomed to using
assembler language.  But he has posted that he is now faced with using a
machine for which he does not have access to an assembler.

My complaint about assemblers is that they have a syntax designed to be
easy for the assembler, but hard for the human.  

>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.

I do NOT want a custom-designed language system.  What I want is a language
which is flexible enough, and allows augmentations, so that one does not 
have to fight it.  There is now no computer language which is not overly
restricted.  For numerical programming, C, if it had multidimensional
arrays and exponentiation, would be superior in almost all respects to
Fortran, and would become more widely used for that purpose.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)