Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work - expression notation
Message-ID: <4390:Dec1003:50:4790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 10 Dec 90 03:50:47 GMT
References: <8339@lanl.gov> <914:Dec923:50:2990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Dec10.023332.15164@ariel.unm.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 51

In article <1990Dec10.023332.15164@ariel.unm.edu> john@ghostwheel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
> In article <914:Dec923:50:2990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> > Jim, how is a**b more ``standard mathematical notation'' than pow(a,b)?
> > How is a.gt.b more ``standard mathematical notation'' than a > b?
> It is sort of obvious isn't it? 

No, it is not.

> To use LaTex format, one writes 
> exponentiation as x^{y} in normal mathematical notation

I see no relations between a**b, pow(a,b), a^{b}, and superscript
notation other than that Fortran and LaTeX use (different) infix, C uses
prefix, and math uses superscript.

So your argument reduces to ``If LaTeX uses an infix notation, then any
infix notation is more standard than any prefix notation.'' This is
ridiculous.

Shall we consider fractions? Math uses a slashed form in two different
positions. Fortran and C use the ``standard'' horizontal form. But for
the vertical form plain TeX uses an infix {a\over b}, and AMSTeX uses
prefix \frac! Which is the ``standard'' notation here?

> but you have to admit that the a**b form
> is the "more natural".

Why? Let's try to use logic, not handwaving. Also note that Jim and I
are talking about ``standard mathematical notation.''

> I could always say something like "Fortran a
> computer language is" instead of "Fortran is a computer language".

The latter is standard English, while the former isn't.

Neither C, nor Fortran, nor TeX has a standard notation for powers. At
least C's notation matches the usual functional notation; you can't say
this for Fortran or plain TeX.

> >Most professional Fortran programmers groan when they hear that
> >Fortran 8X (oops, 9X) has a > b. Maybe ``standard mathematical
> >notation'' isn't as important as familiar notation...
> We must know different professional Fortran programmers.  I have never 
> heard anyone make this comment.

This was the uniform reaction of a large roomful of Fortran programmers
at Brookhaven National Laboratory in 1987 at a presentation of Fortran
8X, and I've heard the same opinion from many other people. Who's your
source?

---Dan