🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <180ignINN60q@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
   Scientist computer not bit one syntax about care.

What is writing it in (inconsistent) RP supposed to prove?  I can
produce various versions in English all having a different structure,
so what?  As to the substance of the sentence, this computer scientist
doesn't, but I don't presume to speak for others.  


   I think it would be nice to "import" a set of syntax rules for whatever
   particular domain you're using, so as to make programming in that domain
   easiest.  It won't make compiler writing easiest, but then again, 
   we have our biases, and we don't care that much how hard that task is.
   :-)

A number of languages have been constructed which allow this to be
done to some extent or other, the latest being Galaxy.  Why not try
one of them out and then tell us how you faired.


   Computer scientists have this bias that the choosing the 
   particular permutation of symbols (how disparaging!) is either
   trivial or irrelevant.

It obviously can make a lot of difference to subjective qualities such
as naturalness, readability ... etc., but it makes no difference
whatsoever to the semantics.  To give you an example, when I'm
attempting to implement some mathematical algorithm in FORTRAN, it is
not the syntax that bugs me, rather it is the fact that it forces me
to write at the lowest level, using DO loops to iterate through arrays
... etc.  This is not a matter of syntax, it is one of semantics.
I much more interested in improving the semantics to support higher
level concepts (such as those found in APL, Haskell or partly FORTRAN
90), than fussing over syntax.  One reason for this is to find out
what the required concepts are, rather than get lost in irrelevant
syntax.  For exmple, consider distributed sum and product in maths:
each has a separate notation (sigma, capital pi) and there is no
general distribution notation.  As APL programmers have found, there
are lots of useful things you can do once you have a general notation
for distribution, reducing, scanning ... etc.  I therefore advocate
getting the semantics right, _then_ you can worry about producing a
"nice" syntax.  Of course Iverson has already done this to some
extent, but still FORTRAN looms large and few people use Iverson's
notation in general mathematics.  So whilst I'll agree that "CS
people" could be more flexible and try to accomodate "scientists"
syntactic wishes, I also think that "scientists" could do with
questioning the notation they come up with and look for underlying
concepts rather than producing endless stream of special cases.

bevan