C vs. FORTRAN

[David Huelsbeck]

>From article <20506 at beta.lanl.gov>, by jlg at 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 at 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