Re: functional paradigm taking over

Why don't you actually go take a look at the definition of language,
specifically definitions three,four,five, and seven here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/language  Also have a look at
definition four in the second set.  While you are at it take a  look at
vocabulary definitions four and five in the first set and four in the second
set here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vocabulary

Your degree of ignorance about what the word language means does not help
communication.  I specifically mentioned to Phillip to look up the words in
a dictionary,  so that he would understand why I made the points I did the
way I did. You really should have heeded my advice rather than attempting to
resort to sarcasm.  Furthermore you totally missed my point about the use of
the ellipsis for exclusive ranges in Ruby, the symbology of the ellipsis
does not give you any indication whatsoever that 1...10 is going to return 1
through 9, on top of that it can be easily confused with "..". Now compare
that with using the lambda symbol for a lambda function: It is a symbol
really only used in mathematics, it is not easily confused with a common
operator, it even manages to retain its' connection to the mathematics
responsible for the concept itself, making it need less explanation for more
people since more people will know about lambda calculus than will expect an
ellipsis to stand for an exclusive range.

Oh and by the way do you know what every program that has ever been or ever
will be created has that your easy chair will not simply with moving parts?
 The ability to express a set of human thoughts, like math, Ruby, Latin and
Java.  These four unlike your easy chair do not simply do, they were created
to be understood by humans.  But please do attempt more sarcasm, to cover up
for your inability to actually look at a dictionary.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Chad Perrin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:47:17PM +0900, Kevin wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I guess, by your phrasing, we simply do not "understand" your "language",
> because the "language" you are making is "spoken" upon "semantics" that
> do not exist in anyone else's "metalanguages".
>
> Put another way, we do not "agree with" your "argument", because the
> "argument" you are making is "predicated" upon "premises" that do not
> exist in anyone else's "experience".
>
> I don't think taking your approach to labeling everything under the Sun a
> "language" really aids communication.
>
> Your attempt to bend software into the shape of a language by calling it
> a "system", then contrasting the fact it basically has moving parts with
> the case of tables and chairs to say it's not just a "singular object",
> is flawed.  Recliners and collapsible card tables are not "languages"
> just because they are complex systems of moving parts any more than my
> mail user agent is a "language" for the same reason.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Really?  What's wrong with using ellipsis points to stand in for a range?
> Are you saying that software would be easier to read and write (and
> understand) if we had to type every single number between 1 and 1000 into
> a program to create an array containing all those numbers?  What if we
> want to exclude number 347?  I think this:
>
>    foo = ((1...347).to_a + (348..1000).to_a).flatten
>
> . . . is much easier to quickly read and properly understand than the
> alternative:
>
>    foo = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16     # . . . and so on
>
> Of course, in this case the exclusive ellipsis is probably not the best
> option, and instead my example of using ellipsis points should look like
> this instead:
>
>    foo = ((1..346).to_a + (348..1000).to_a).flatten
>
> There are times that three ellipsis points are more appropriate, though.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> It's easy to explain how ellipsis points work in Ruby:
>
> Three points are "up to"; two points are "through".  If you want "one
> through ten", use two points, because the last number in the series
> essentially *is* the third point.  If you want "one to ten", use three
> points, showing that it ends with that third point.  It's a pretty simple
> rule and, while it may not match with exactly what *you* expect, it is
> still consistent and meaningful, and easily explained.
>
> Also . . . is there any chance we can get you to stop top-posting
> everything?  TOFU posting is kind of annoying.
>
> --
> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
>