From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-07-21T14:50:42+09:00
Subject: Re: The Pebble in the Ruby Shoe

On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 01:11:30PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 03:46:11AM +0900, Steven Lumos wrote:
> >> Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> writes:
> >>> As you say, the zero-based array is a practical matter related to the
> >>> work of programming (as well as being related to the applicability of set
> >>> theory to language design), and not a convenience for those wacky
> >>> mathematicians with their nonstandard way of counting (kind of a strange
> >>> claim to make).  In contrast with your implication that this is somehow a
> >>> *bad* practical decision, however, it's actually the case that, by and
> >>> large, the benefits for natural sequential operations in programming and
> >>> the in-built compatibility of zero-based arrays with certain concepts of
> >>> set theory add up to a strikingly practical, and quite positive, reason
> >>> for zero-based arrays.
> >> Not only did I not mean to imply that, but I'm not sure I can even
> >> parse "bad practical decision".  If I knew the evidence I had implied
> >> in support of my implied claim then maybe I could. :-)
> >>
> >> But I even explicitly said that "It's a good and safe decision
> >> supported by decades of computing convention and habit..."
> > 
> > That would be why I used terms like "seem" and so on in that email -- I
> > wasn't 100% certain of your intent, based on what you said.
> > 
> > 
> >>> In other words, your premises are largely correct, but they do not lead
> >>> to the conclusions you seem to suggest.
> >> I'm just sick of hearing that Ruby does such and such because
> >> mathematicians like it.
> > 
> > Fair enough.  I agree with you on that score, actually -- that it gets
> > kind of old seeing people try to equate everything in computer science
> > with the will of mathematicians.  That's the sort of thinking that leads
> > to CS students wasting time on trigonometry when they could be spending
> > it on something useful to computer science, like linear algebra.
> > 
> Well ... maybe "Computer Science" students don't need to know
> trigonometry, but I doubt very seriously a trig-impaired person could
> get an Electrical Engineering degree. Hell, if they didn't have trig and
> calculus and analytic geometry under their belts on the SAT, they
> couldn't get *into* a EE program!

There's a pretty big difference between "electrical engineering" and
"computer science".


> 
> I was actually one of the first students in the USA to get calculus and
> analytic geometry in high school. This was right after Sputnik and I
> lived in a town full of scientists and engineers. I was also fortunate
> to have graduated before the "New Math", which was mostly set theory.
> 
> So ... would you say queuing theory is useful to computer science? I
> certainly would. Well, it turns out, as we mathematicians like to say,
> that you can use a Fast Fourier Transform to solve some queuing theory
> problems that are more or less intractable otherwise. Can you do a Fast
> Fourier Transform without sines and cosines?

Maybe not -- but my objection is more to the saddling of CS students with
several years of trig and calculus *classes* than with the imparting of
any of the basics that are related to those subjects.  The basics of
trigonometry as taught in a trig class, in fact, can be imparted to a
student quite thoroughly in about two class sessions -- and it usually
is, in a preceding geometry or algebra course.  Meanwhile, the rest of
what's "taught" in typical college trig courses can be easily derived
from the basics, and is just rote memorization for the purpose of passing
tests, to be forgotten immediately after the test in time to memorize for
the next exam.

Meh.  I have traumatic experiences of almost being entirely turned off of
"higher education" by the stupidities of a computer science curriculum.
Your mileage may vary.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Baltasar Gracian: "A wise man gets more from his enemies than a fool from
his friends."