🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <PCG.90Dec7150237@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk>, by pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi):
> [...]
> I hope that people like the guy above read the famous (evidently not
> enough!) paper on how to find the real roots of 2nd order polynomial
> equations (ax^2+bx+c=0) by computer (I cannot remember the author now --
> Dekker maybe -- but I remember the paper is looong and difficult) and be
> ashamed (yes, ashamed) for ever having thought that the resemblance of
> Fortran's notation with maths is anything more than a honey trap for the
> unwary.

By this argument, computational notation should be as different as
possible from standard mathematical notation.  It is not true though.
The purpose of a programming language is _not_ to pander to the
unwary.  The purpose is to provide a convenient tool with which to
construct executable representations of algorithms.  For this purpose,
the closer the language notation is to the corresponding notation used
in the problem domain, the better.  Bizarre, peculiar, idiosyncratic
notation (such as is common in C) is just an impediment.

Fortran is far from being too close to mathematical notation: it is
not close enough.  It is, however, as close as the charcter set of
those early times allowed.  It is certainly closer than C (and this
is one of the factors in Fortran's favor).

J. Giles