Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site kuling.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!enea!kuling!martin
From: martin@kuling.UUCP (Erik Martin)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Using LISP for scientific programming? (gasp!)
Message-ID: <805@kuling.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 23:14:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: kuling.805
Posted: Sat Sep 14 23:14:06 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 08:31:10 EDT
References: <909@oddjob.UUCP> <163@ho95e.UUCP> <152@rtp47.UUCP> <1057@sdcsvax.UUCP> <799@kuling.UUCP> <1250@teddy.UUCP>
Reply-To: martin@kuling.UUCP (Per-Erik Martin)
Distribution: net
Organization: The Royal Inst. of Techn., Stockholm
Lines: 33

In article <1250@teddy.UUCP> rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes:
>In article <799@kuling.UUCP> martin@kuling.UUCP (Per-Erik Martin) writes:
>>
>>I came from FORTRAN/Pascal to Lisp. It was wonderful.
>>
>What is FORTRAN/Pascal? I didn't know they were that alike? Is this an
>arithmetic expression? If so, the result is dman near zero :-)
Of course it is near zero! That's what's wonderful: Lisp is a *long* way
from zero. ;-)
>>
>>Most scientific programmers have studied enough math to learn that with
>>no problems at all. Hewlett Packards calculators, which use postfix syntax,
>>are very popular among scientific engineers.
>>
>I was around when the first HP scientific calculators were introduced. You
>could not imagine the grumbling, the bitching, the weeping wailing and
>gnashing of teeth on the part of the scientific and engineering community
>about having to use RPN. very few liked it, but they all put up with it
>because it was the only thing around.
I was not around then but I *can* imagine the grumbling and so on.
I was referring to the situation now, here in Sweden (Uppsala), where
many students chose the HP calculators despite high prize, but the majority
prefers the traditional algebraic syntax, though.
>
>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. If it can be demonstrated that all arithmetic, algebra,
>etc. etc. has been presented in RPN, then you got a case for it's proliferation.
>Otherwise, it is merely forcing the inadequacies of an architecture on the user.
I agree.
-- 
Per-Erik Martin,  Uppsala University, Sweden
UUCP: martin@kuling.UUCP  (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!martin)