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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: milkweed@plainfield.bypass.com (Anders Pytte) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/02/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 220294618 References: <5de62l$f13$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <32FB8B51.1759@concentric.net> <3302DB3E.F70@concentric.net> <33054E63.C2A@concentric.net> <5eb5jt$kl7$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <5einvs$i0l@news1.ucsd.edu> Organization: Milkweed Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1997-02-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5einvs$i0l@news1.ucsd.edu>, kennel@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) wrote: > Richard A. O'Keefe (ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au) wrote: > : Here's the abstract of a subject at another university (so as not to > : advertise): > > : Math XXXX: Functional Analysis > : Linear metric and topological spaces, duality, weak topology, > : spaces of functions, generalised derivatives and distributions, > : Sobolev spaces, linear operators, compact operators, elements > : of spectral theory, and operator calculus. > > : This use of the word "operator" > : - is pretty much standard in mathematics > : - refers to a *semantic* property rather than a *syntactic* one > : - refers to a property that "+" does not have in any major programming > : language. > > Thank you. I too feel the grating of my auditory cortex upon hearing > descriptions of "+" as an ''operator'' in programming languages, and sigh upon > sadly seeing such use enshrined in say, C++ syntax. What's wrong with > "infix procedure"? (And I have a certain fondness for good old "subroutine", > a clear and descriptive neologism sadly supplanted by fussy indeterminacies > like 'method' 'procedure' or occasionally misleading 'function'.) > > Now that I'm doing quantum mechanics again, it becomes even worse, because > questions like "do these operators commute or not" have entirely > incommensurate connotations. > > I can understand how other words such as 'matrix' end up with quite unrelated > meanings in medicine and mathematics, but in programming languages, the > designers really should have known better. > > Even more irritating is the frightful abuse of the word "Vector", which > quite foolishly has come to mean 'array-style containers'. > > \begin{james_earl_jones} > ``If this is a consular ship, then *where* is the Vector Space? ... > Tear this library apart until you've found the group structure, and > bring me the designers, I want them alive!'' > \end{james_earl_jones} > : -- > Well, I advocate a balance between formality and fluidity in language. As I said before, all of these words (including infix and vector) had meanings before they were ever used in restrictive context of mathematics. Since all your favorite mathematical terms are the result of "word fetching" (Robert Frost), that is, using existing words in a new way to express novel ideas, through anaology, it hardly seems fair to frown upon the continuation of that practice. Anders. -- Anders Pytte Milkweed Software RR 1, Box 227 Voice: (802) 472-5142 Cabot VT 05647 Internet: milkweed@plainfield.bypass.com