Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!oddjob!sra
From: sra@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Using LISP for scientific programming? (gasp!)
Message-ID: <960@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 7-Sep-85 17:43:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.960
Posted: Sat Sep  7 17:43:03 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 01:06:38 EDT
References: <909@oddjob.UUCP> <163@ho95e.UUCP> <152@rtp47.UUCP> <1057@sdcsvax.UUCP> <799@kuling.UUCP> <1250@teddy.UUCP>
Reply-To: sra@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Chicago, Department of Physics
Lines: 27
Summary: 

In article <1250@teddy.UUCP> rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes:
>
>As yet, I have yet to find a standard Algebra book that states the quadratic
>formula in anything other than algebraic notation. So what if one takes more
>keystrokes than another? (10 percent more, maybe). The algebraic expression
>of algebraic equations is closer to the method that is presented in high
>schools and college math and engineering courses. That alone is sufficient,
>in my view, to condemn RPN.

I must agree with your observation regarding what is the prevalent mathematical
notation, and of course this is why most programming languages use algebraic
notation.  However, I think this a matter of taste more than anything else; 
some people actually *prefer* RPN (or PN, in my case).

Of course, most people's taste is merely a matter of "I don't want to have
to learn anything new".

>The fact that stack-oriented architectures are better served by expressions
>in RPN notation is no damned excuse. Computers exist to serve people, not
>the other way around.

From what I've heard about lisp, it is highly maleable as far as its notation
is concerned; are there any implementations which use algebraic notation and
which are available as compilers (i.e. not Macsyma)?

					Scott Anderson
					ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra