Re: functional paradigm taking over

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 02:53:04PM +0900, Kevin wrote:
>
> 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

Let's see . . . definitions three, four, and five there support my usage,
and definition seven is a metaphorical usage.  It's kind of amusing that
in a computing context you are intent on ignoring definition twelve,
though.  Are you aware that context matters?

What the hell are you trying to prove, exactly?


>=20
> 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 "..".

I didn't exactly "miss" it -- I just though you couldn't possibly mean
what it turns out you meant, since what you actually meant is apparently
"I'm upset about the fact that someone who doesn't know a particular
language can't understand every single thing about it without trying to
learn it."  It's especially stupid, given the cryptic design of
spreadsheets, which are almost completely meaningless to people who are
not familiar with . . . spreadsheets.

It's a lot easier to understand this:

    print "            Hello, Bob!"

=2E . . than this:

    "Click on the little rectangle down five and over twelve to the
    right.  Move up to that long rectangle near the top, and click there.
    Type 'Hello,'.  Click on the little rectangle down five and over
    thirteen to the right.  Move up to that long rectangle near the top
    again, and click there -- again.  Type 'Bob!'.  Click the little
    rectangle that says 'Hello,' in it.  Hold down the Ctrl key and click
    the rectangle that says 'Bob!' in it.  Click the word 'Format' way,
    way up at the top of the screen.  Point at the words 'Merge Cells'
    where they appear in the tall gray rectangle that appears from that
    word 'Format'.  Move the mouse pointer to the right, into the
    rectangle that appears beside the words 'Merge Cells' and click where
    it says 'Merge and Center Cells'.  When the thingie that says 'Should
    the contents of the hidden cells be moved into the first cell?' click
    the little rectangle there that says 'Yes'."

(Note: I'm using OO.o as my example at the moment, because I don't want
to book Win7 just to write this email.)

You can actually see everything that's going on in the first example.  In
the second . . . good luck.  I think the use of ellipsis points in Ruby
is pretty easy to understand by comparison.  Here's an explanation:

    "(1..10) means 'one through ten'.  (1...10) means 'one to ten'."

Perhaps you'd like to type up a similarly succinct explanation of how to
get exactly the same meaning out of some construct in a spreadsheet.  We
can compare the complexity and obviousness -- both preceding and
subsequent to the explanation -- of meaning to someone unfamiliar with
the language (in Ruby's case) or application (in the spreadsheet
application's case).


>
> 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.

If we only ever used symbols that are only ever used for exactly one
meaning, we wouldn't have any languages or applications that could get
any work done.  Try the multiple meanings of "format", used above; the
multiple meanings of "cell"; the multiple meanings of "hidden"; hell,
even the multiple meanings of "10" or "bob".

=2E . . and you're wrong.  The Lambda symbol has many meanings.  Try
checking its use in the phrase Lambda Calculus, which is not the same as
its use as a specific, limited purpose construct in a particular
programming language; check its use in Greek; check its use in the LGBT
community; try a Google search and the Wikipedia article for the symbol
and spend hours finding other uses.

The fact of the matter is that even if someone assumes the "correct"
meaning for the lambda symbol from mathematics when seeing it in a
programming concept, adjustments will have to be made to accomodate the
context of the particular computational sub-model represented by the
language in question, just as the same will have to be done with the
common English-language meaning of ellipsis points.


>=20
> 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.

Um . . . were you even paying attention?  I said that a recliner is *not*
a language.  Why are you now arguing that it is not like a language as if
that somehow disputes what I said?

I wasn't being sarcastic when I brought up the idea of a recliner.  I was
making an analogy.

=2E . . nd please, stop fucking TOFU posting.  Trim and respond.  It's a
lot easier to communicate that way, because context matters when trying
to communicate with people.

Then again, you seem to think that MS Excel is a language, so I guess I
shouldn't expect you to know much about communication.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]