Xref: utzoo comp.arch:10572 comp.lang.misc:3061
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!oliveb!pyramid!ncc!alberta!cdshaw
From: cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Stop him before he KILLS AGAIN! (SL Wars)
Summary: Cut it out, Dr Rubin
Keywords: Not again!
Message-ID: <2367@pembina.UUCP>
Date: 10 Jul 89 08:57:03 GMT
References: <1395@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: cdshaw@pembina.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Followup-To: comp.arch
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Lines: 68

In article <1395@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>It is why I execrate most of the present assembler languages.  Notation is 
>very important. For example, I consider the introduction of algebraic 
>symbols by Diophantus as one of the really great contributions to
>mathematical communication.  

Sure. And C probably sucks from that perspective. The question is, what are
YOU going to do about it? However, I take issue with the idea that 
"notation is all you need". I've seen a few cases where compactness is used
for compactness's sake, at the expense of communication. Programs are not
only for programming a machine, but for communication to other readers
of the program.

>I think of making similar operations such as frexp, divrem, exponentiation,
>absolute value, integer part, etc., machine independently coded in C.
>I would not consider coding the =UP above in C.  It is an additional
>primitive operation, like +, *, /, &.

What symbols? APL characters? Do it, we don't care. Program in Methematica
if you have to. C is guilty of all such charges. So what?

>I have yet to see a fair compiler.
You haven't been looking nearly hard enough.

>Also, computer language and system people seem prone to taking standard
>mathematical symbols and using them for other purposes, even to the extent
>that the standard use is precluded by it.

Who says what "standard use" is? Stop programming in a systems language,
and you might find that you get "standard mathematical use".

>Whatever is appropriate.  But the C preprocessor, or any other present
>macro language in my ken, will not do it.  A macro template processor,
>in which the macro "name" is scattered through the macro, and which is
>weakly typed and may even use storage classes, would do the job.

So build one and shut up. Or better yet, shut up first, then build one.

>	c{'z} ={t} {-}{|} a{'x} OP{m} {|} b{'y} {/\{~}w}

I must say, I haven't a clue what this means. Every time I've seen this, my
eyes glaze over and my pulse drops to nothing. I become a zombie. It'd sad, 
really. This example excess terse.

>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907

My central thesis on this issue remains the same. Dr Rubin wants something
customized to his desires for free. He ain't gonna get it. TAANSTAFL.

He should interest someone in CS at Purdue in his gripes. Who knows? Maybe
he'll get something really nifty happening, and he'll have the pleasure
of telling all of us snivelling low-life slime just how right he was.

Then again, maybe he's Bogus as HELL. Only time and effort on his part will
convince us otherwise. Reminds me of an Arab saying: "If one man calls you
an ass, ignore him. If twenty men call you an ass, buy yourself a saddle."

Frankly, I think that Dr Rubin's remarks on this topic are ignorant, over-
bearing, and arrogant, and while I don't expect him to earn a CS degree in
his spare time, I DO expect him to do better than whine about something
without a clear understanding of all of the issues involved. The ONLY 
alternative is to prove conventional wisdom wrong by doing what we claim
to be impossible.

-- 
Chris Shaw    cdshaw@alberta.UUCP 
University of Alberta
CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !