Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!loci
From: loci@killer.UUCP (loci!clb)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Universal Programming Languge (was: Universal OS)
Message-ID: <4039@killer.UUCP>
Date: 9 May 88 19:30:32 GMT
References: <769@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> <76700017@uiucdcsp> <843@actnyc.UUCP> <3558@psuvax1.psu.edu>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 59

In article <3558@psuvax1.psu.edu>, schwartz@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes:
> In article <4658@ihlpf.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) writes:
> 
> I'm not convinced that "mathematics" (whatever that is) would make 
> anything like a decent programming language.  
> 
> First of all, assuming you agree that more is better in these things,
> why not use English as you programming language?  The fact that nobody...


	Immediately, the major problem with English, or any other spoken
	language is the high degree of ambiguity and redundancy that is
	required (?) for human speech. Computers have totally different
	requirements, especially more isn't better, it's just more.
	Computers are mathematical, and operate best on these problem,
	much less well on poetry, literature, ...
> 
> Ok, so English is too hard, but "mathematics" is just notation right?
> Easy for computers to deal with, right?  Wrong.  I'm not the best
> mathematician in the world, but when I was getting my B.A. in it I was
> taught that mathematics is written in English.  I think this is an
> important issue.  Read any mathematical paper: The notation is there to
> augmnent the English prose that the paper is written in.  To do justice
> to the idea of a programming language that embodies all the power of
> the mathematical notation we see so often is probably going to require the
> English language as it's extention mechanism if you expect humans to
> use it and get the same kinds of (good) results they get now.
> 
	This isn't right. I have any number of books dealing with
	mathematical subjects (physics, astronomy, economics, etc.)
	and they are written in mathematics. The English merely
	introduces sections. To demonstrate that, get an English
	professor to read it and explain to you what it says. In
	all probability, it might as well be written in Martian.
> 
> Second, why the fascination with mathematics?  How about formal logic?
> This should appeal in the same way that mathematical notation does,
> and has the added advantage of being actually doable.  Prolog is 
> a proof-of-concept of this idea.

	The "fascination" is the usefulness in describing real-world
	processes. Operations in mathematics aren't used just to
	make something complicated: they are used because they model
	natural events and problems in a way that simplifies their
	understanding. Formal logic is less real-world, more like
	an effort on the part of people to model the world in their
	terms.

	The problem most people have with mathematics is the same as
	anything else: it is unfamiliar and thus intimidating. If
	you're looking for something simple, then you find something
	with little power. To do complex problem, you've got to roll
	up your sleeves and work at it. Not because the method is
	hard, but because the world is complex. 

	One more thing. Notation is a problem with mathematics because
	the ASCII character set is too simple (small) to allow
	the expression of mathematical operations in a natural way.
	Just try to get tensor calculus to squeeze into ASCII.