From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,901cf02e3fdf0c96
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: kevin  cline <kevin.cline@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: SI Units - has Ada missed the boat?
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:29:55 -0000
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1185168595.983271.43740@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
References: <1183907619.564482.240470@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
   <1184742672.910297.54010@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
   <469dcbd2$0$21009$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.186.29.123
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1185168596 10837 127.0.0.1 (23 Jul 2007 05:29:56
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:29:56 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <469dcbd2$0$21009$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.5) Gecko/20070713 Firefox/2.0.0.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.186.29.123;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16541
Date: 2007-07-23T05:29:55+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jul 18, 3:17 am, Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus.rm.t...@maps.futureapps.de>
wrote:
> kevin cline wrote:
> > This is rather unwieldy since Java does not allow operator
> > overloading.  Who wants to read code like:
>
> >    time_aloft = sqrt(height.times(2).divide(g))
>
> I'd like to know why this programmer's expression of a formula
> for use by a computer is inferior, assuming the typical alternative
> would be[*]
>
>      time_aloft = sqrt((2 * height) / g))

With three thousand years of practice writing mathematical
expressions, symbolic operators are universally preferred over prosaic
expressions.  Would you also claim that:

  Let y = a times x times x plus b plus c

is just as easily grasped as:

  Let y = ax^2 + bx + c ?