Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:11018 comp.lang.fortran:847 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!mordor!joyce!ames!hc!lanl!dph From: dph@lanl.gov (David Huelsbeck) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: C vs. FORTRAN Message-ID: <559@lanl.gov> Date: 30 Jun 88 17:40:07 GMT References: <20506@beta.lanl.gov> Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 48 From article <20506@beta.lanl.gov>, by jlg@beta.lanl.gov (Jim Giles): [...] > > LISP isn't terribly hard to read either, but it's not what I want to > code numerical expressions in. The syntax that mathematics uses is ^^^^^^^^^^^ > really well suited to the task. The programming language syntax for > the same purposes should look as similar as possible to the original > math. There is no reason that I can see to adopt any other rule of > choice in language design. [...] Hmmm. Jim, I tend to think lisp looks more like mathematic syntax than Fortran does. A small subset of Fortran looks a lot like arithmetic but mathematics? I don't seem to remember seeing any DO loops in my mathematics texts. Well, maybe in my numerical methods book but it also contained an arithmetic-if-statement in an example of "good code". Anybody who can defend the AIS should have no problem with x+=(p=foo(b)?++i:i--) I would have put a smile at the end but it might have looked like code. ;-D If you want something that really looks like mathematics, with the the for-all and the there-exists operators, and REAL subscripting and superscripting try MODCAP. (sigplan notices years ago) > > > J. Giles > Los Alamos David Huelsbeck dph@lanl.gov ...!cmcl2!lanl!dph news fodder news fodder news fodder news fodder news fodder news fodder news fodder news fodder news fodder news fodder