From: Kevin <darkintent@...>
Date: 2011-04-12T16:47:17+09:00
Subject: Re: functional paradigm taking over

--000e0ce0b32a8d534e04a0b3e677
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

No I'm not confusing them, all programs provide the vocabulary (Means of
expression.  Look it up if you don't believe me.) necessary to deal with a
particular problem or problem domain.  Furthermore what you said hardly
distinguishes computer programs from every other language humans have ever
or will ever create.  All of those solve particular problems just as much as
computer programs do.  What a program is, is a system as opposed to a
singular object like a table or a chair.  The system is itself the tool and
the system exists solely to allow humans to express their will to machines.

Terseness is a problem the moment it causes people to prioritize it above
superior semantics.  It might be a great idea to use the mathematical symbol
for lambda to refer to a lambda function but it is not necessarily a great
idea to use an ellipsis to refer to an exclusive range like we do in Ruby.
 Both use very few characters to get the job done, but one is not only much
more distinct, it is far easier to explain since it matches a subject more
people are likely to associate correctly with very little in the way of
explanation.  (Though I think that Ruby explains things nicely without
getting into the whole lambda/closure thing right out of the gate.)  Why the
ellipsis is used for excluding the last number in a range is not readily
explainable, the use of the lambda symbol to refer to lambda functions
however is.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Phillip Gawlowski <
cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Aren't all programs languages as the program describes a particular
> problem
> > or set of problems?
>
> Programs are solutions to problems.
>
> >  It seems that saying that a program is not a language
> > is a bit of an artificial distinction.  Mathematics is a language.  Ruby
> or
> > C++ are languages that can be used to construct entirely new languages.
> >  Even pictures can form the basis of language.  Every program that exists
> > possesses the vocabulary to deal with a given problem domain, so why
> bother
> > trying to claim that something like Excel does not have these qualities?
> >  Aside from adherence  to useless jargon of course.
>
> You are confusing computer science with linguistics.
>
> > As for issues like terseness, it isn't really a virtue at all. That you
> can
> > say or do more with less is not very important if people have a distinct
> bit
> > of trouble understanding what is being communicated.  The goal should be
> > clarity, not trying to condense everything into the fewest possible
> symbols,
> > ultimately to say that you could.
>
> That isn't a problem of terseness, but a problem of semantics, and how
> well something can be understood and learned.
>
> --
> Phillip Gawlowski
>
> Though the folk I have met,
> (Ah, how soon!) they forget
> When I've moved on to some other place,
> There may be one or two,
> When I've played and passed through,
> Who'll remember my song or my face.
>
>

--000e0ce0b32a8d534e04a0b3e677--