Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #21027 > unrolled thread

New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 00:09 -0800
    Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Chiron <chiron613@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 11:43 +0000
      Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 07:12 -0500
      Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detracters Remain Idiots After A Decade! Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2012-02-29 23:06 -0500
        Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detracters Remain Idiots After A Decade! Chiron <chiron613@gmail.com> - 2012-03-01 04:52 +0000
          Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detracters Remain Idiots After A Decade! Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2012-03-01 10:07 -0500
    Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-02-29 13:08 +0100
      Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 16:02 -0800
        Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-01 12:00 +0100
          Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2012-03-02 05:12 -0800
            Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-02 15:15 +0100
    Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2012-02-29 15:15 +0000
      Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-02-29 17:18 +0100
      Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2012-02-29 23:10 -0500
        Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af Chiron <chiron613@gmail.com> - 2012-03-01 05:07 +0000
          Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2012-03-01 10:13 -0500
            Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af Chiron <chiron613@gmail.com> - 2012-03-02 14:17 +0000
              Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detractors Remain Idiots After A Decade! Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2012-03-02 10:53 -0500
                Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detractors Remain Idiots After A Decade! Chiron <chiron613@gmail.com> - 2012-03-02 19:06 +0000
          Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2012-03-01 16:58 -0500
        Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2012-03-01 14:40 +0000
          Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2012-03-01 16:11 -0500
    Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! namekuseijin <namekuseijin@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 09:45 -0800
    Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2012-03-01 16:46 -0800
    Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Chiron <chiron613@gmail.com> - 2012-03-02 07:27 +0000
    Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-12 11:27 +0000
      Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detractors Remain Idiots After A Decade Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2012-03-12 08:40 -0400
        Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detractors Remain Idiots After A Decade Raymond Wiker <raw@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan> - 2012-03-12 19:20 +0100
      Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-12 14:05 +0100
        Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-12 19:00 +0000
          Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-12 21:27 +0100
          Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-13 12:00 +0100
          Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-13 12:03 +0100
          Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2012-03-12 16:20 -0400
          Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade! Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-13 17:41 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#21090 — Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
> In <87aa41k6x5.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>, on 02/29/2012
>    at 03:15 PM, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> said:
>
>>'mathematics' (an essentially outdated write-only programming 
>>language dating back to the times when humans had to perform 
>>computations themselves) 
>
> ROTF,LMAO! You obviously don't have a clue as to what Mathematics
> means. Free hint: it doesn't mean Arithmetic.

You obviously don't have any sense of humour. But don't let this
trouble you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21133 — Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af

In <87k4341j0l.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>, on 03/01/2012
   at 02:40 PM, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> said:

>You obviously don't have any sense of humour.

Certainly I do; I laugh at pretentious loons with delusions of
adequacy.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21050

On Feb 29, 5:09 am, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!
>
> A excerpt from the new book 〈Modern Perl〉, just published, chapter 4
> on “Operators”. Quote:
>
> «The associativity of an operator governs whether it evaluates from
> left to right or right to left. Addition is left associative, such
> that 2 + 3 + 4 evaluates 2 + 3 first, then adds 4 to the result.
> Exponentiation is right associative, such that 2 ** 3 ** 4 evaluates 3
> ** 4 first, then raises 2 to the 81st power. »
>
> LOL. Looks like the perl folks haven't changed. Fundamentals of
> serious math got botched so badly.
>
> Let me explain the idiocy.
>
> It says “The associativity of an operator governs whether it evaluates
> from left to right or right to left.”. Ok, so let's say we have 2
> operators: a white triangle △ and a black triangle ▲. Now, by the
> perl's teaching above, let's suppose the white triangle is “right
> associative” and the black triangle is “left associative”. Now, look
> at this:
>
> 3 △ 6 ▲ 5
>
> seems like the white and black triangles are going to draw a pistol
> and fight for the chick 6 there. LOL.
>
> Now, let me tell you what operator precedence is. First of all, let's
> limit ourselfs to discuss operators that are so-called binary
> operators, which, in our context, basically means single symbol
> operator that takes it's left and right side as operands. Now, each
> symbol have a “precedence”, or in other words, the set of operators
> has a order. (one easy way to think of this is that, suppose you have
> n symbols, then you give each a number, from 1 to n, as their order)
> So, when 2 symbols are placed side by side such as 「3 △ 6 ▲ 5」, the
> symbol with higher precedence wins. Another easy way to think of this
> is that each operator has a stickiness level. The higher its level, it
> more sticky it is.
>
> the problem with the perl explanations is that it's one misleading
> confusion ball. It isn't about “left/right associativity”. It isn't
> about “evaluates from left to right or right to left”. Worse, the word
> “associativity” is a math term that describe a property of algebra
> that has nothing to do with operator precedence, yet is easily
> confused with because it is a property about order of evaluation. (for
> example, the addition function is associative, meaning: 「(3+6)+5 =
> 3+(6+5)」.)
>
> compare it with this:
>
> 〈Perl ＆ Python: Complex Numbers〉http://xahlee.org/perl-python/complex_numbers.html
>
> and for a good understanding of functions and operators, see:
>
> 〈What's Function, What's Operator?〉http://xahlee.org/math/function_and_operators.html

associativity of operators mean little in the Lisp world obviously, so
why was this posted here?  Sorry, perl, python and emacs folks...

BTW, it's the same in javascript: it is so such that 2 + 3 + "4" is
"54" and "2" + 3 + 4 is "234".  Blame weak typing and + overloading,
though it may be a blessing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21106

First of all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5jKMEB4hHE

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:09:16AM -0800, Xah Lee wrote:
> Now, let me tell you what operator precedence is. First of all, let's
> limit ourselfs to discuss operators that are so-called binary
> operators, which, in our context, basically means single symbol
> operator that takes it's left and right side as operands. Now, each
> symbol have a “precedence”, or in other words, the set of operators
> has a order. (one easy way to think of this is that, suppose you have
> n symbols, then you give each a number, from 1 to n, as their order)
> So, when 2 symbols are placed side by side such as 「3 △ 6 ▲ 5」, the
> symbol with higher precedence wins. Another easy way to think of this
> is that each operator has a stickiness level. The higher its level, it
> more sticky it is.

You're absolutely correct.

> the problem with the perl explanations is that it's one misleading
> confusion ball. It isn't about “left/right associativity”. It isn't
> about “evaluates from left to right or right to left”. Worse, the word
> “associativity” is a math term that describe a property of algebra
> that has nothing to do with operator precedence, yet is easily
> confused with because it is a property about order of evaluation. (for
> example, the addition function is associative, meaning: 「(3+6)+5 =
> 3+(6+5)」.)

You're not getting it.

Math is a language.  Perl is a language.  They have different rules for
grammar.  In Perl, C, Python, Java, and pretty much all procedural-based
languages, operations are evaluated in two steps: the precedence /and/
the associativity.  Each level of precedence has its own associativity,
either left-to-right or right-to-left.  You can see this in table 2-1 in
The C Programming Language.  Whatever math does or what you think math
does has nothing to do with the way Perl evaluates expressions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21129

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:09:16 -0800, Xah Lee wrote:

Xah, you won't grow even an inch taller by cutting others down.

-- 
I joined scientology at a garage sale!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21528

In article <0078bbfb-5dfc-48fc-af1a-69de3cf15c3e@b1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Xah Lee  <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:
>New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!
>
>A excerpt from the new book =E3=80=88Modern Perl=E3=80=89, just published, =
>chapter 4
>on =E2=80=9COperators=E2=80=9D. Quote:
>
>=C2=ABThe associativity of an operator governs whether it evaluates from
>left to right or right to left. Addition is left associative, such
>that 2 + 3 + 4 evaluates 2 + 3 first, then adds 4 to the result.
>Exponentiation is right associative, such that 2 ** 3 ** 4 evaluates 3
>** 4 first, then raises 2 to the 81st power. =C2=BB
>
>LOL. Looks like the perl folks haven't changed. Fundamentals of
>serious math got botched so badly.

You're confused.

Associativity of operators is defined in mathematics.
(The same concept may be used in programming).
"left-associativity" and "right-associativity" are computer languages
concept and their definitions are not from mathematics.

Interestingly in mathematics associative means that it doesn't matter
whether you use (a.b).c or a.(b.c).
Using xxx-associativity to indicate that it *does* matter is
a bit perverse, but the Perl people are not to blame if they use
a term in their usual sense.

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21529 — Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detractors Remain Idiots After A Decade

In <m0rrtp.2pl@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, on 03/12/2012
   at 11:27 AM, Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> said:

>You're confused.

No, s/h/it is just an acephalic troll with delusions of adequacy.

>"left-associativity" and "right-associativity" are computer
>languages concept and their definitions are not from mathematics.

Don't confuse the google pest with facts.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21541 — Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detractors Remain Idiots After A Decade

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:

> In <m0rrtp.2pl@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, on 03/12/2012
>    at 11:27 AM, Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> said:
>
>>You're confused.
>
> No, s/h/it is just an acephalic troll with delusions of adequacy.

	Another way to put it is to say that Xah is a legend in his 
own mind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21531

On 3/12/2012 12:27, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> Interestingly in mathematics associative means that it doesn't matter
> whether you use (a.b).c or a.(b.c).
> Using xxx-associativity to indicate that it *does* matter is
> a bit perverse, but the Perl people are not to blame if they use
> a term in their usual sense.

You may see it this way:
Def1. An operator +:SxS->S is left-associative iff
   a+b+c = (a+b)+c for all a,b,c in S.
Def2. An operator +:SxS->S is right-associative iff
   a+b+c = a+(b+c) for all a,b,c in S.
Def3. An operator +:SxS->S is associative iff it is both left and 
right-associative.

Kiuhnm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21542

In article <4f5df4b3$0$1375$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it>,
Kiuhnm  <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> wrote:
>On 3/12/2012 12:27, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>> Interestingly in mathematics associative means that it doesn't matter
>> whether you use (a.b).c or a.(b.c).
>> Using xxx-associativity to indicate that it *does* matter is
>> a bit perverse, but the Perl people are not to blame if they use
>> a term in their usual sense.
>
>You may see it this way:
>Def1. An operator +:SxS->S is left-associative iff
>   a+b+c = (a+b)+c for all a,b,c in S.
>Def2. An operator +:SxS->S is right-associative iff
>   a+b+c = a+(b+c) for all a,b,c in S.
>Def3. An operator +:SxS->S is associative iff it is both left and
>right-associative.

I know, but what the mathematicians do make so much more sense:
(a+b)+c = a+(b+c)    definition of associative.
Henceforth we may leave out the brackets.

Don't leave out the brackets if the operators if the operators is
not associative.

P.S. There is no need for the operators to be SxS->S.
For example a b c may be m by n, n by l, l by k matrices respectively.

>
>Kiuhnm

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21543

On 3/12/2012 20:00, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article<4f5df4b3$0$1375$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it>,
> Kiuhnm<kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it>  wrote:
>> On 3/12/2012 12:27, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>>> Interestingly in mathematics associative means that it doesn't matter
>>> whether you use (a.b).c or a.(b.c).
>>> Using xxx-associativity to indicate that it *does* matter is
>>> a bit perverse, but the Perl people are not to blame if they use
>>> a term in their usual sense.
>>
>> You may see it this way:
>> Def1. An operator +:SxS->S is left-associative iff
>>    a+b+c = (a+b)+c for all a,b,c in S.
>> Def2. An operator +:SxS->S is right-associative iff
>>    a+b+c = a+(b+c) for all a,b,c in S.
>> Def3. An operator +:SxS->S is associative iff it is both left and
>> right-associative.
>
> I know, but what the mathematicians do make so much more sense:
> (a+b)+c = a+(b+c)    definition of associative.
> Henceforth we may leave out the brackets.

That's Def3. I don't see your point.

> Don't leave out the brackets if the operators if the operators is
> not associative.

(1 - 1) - 1 != 1 - (1 - 1)
and yet we can leave out the parentheses.

> P.S. There is no need for the operators to be SxS->S.
> For example a b c may be m by n, n by l, l by k matrices respectively.

Ops, you're right.

Kiuhnm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21560

On 3/12/2012 20:00, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article<4f5df4b3$0$1375$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it>,
> Kiuhnm<kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it>  wrote:
>> On 3/12/2012 12:27, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>>> Interestingly in mathematics associative means that it doesn't matter
>>> whether you use (a.b).c or a.(b.c).
>>> Using xxx-associativity to indicate that it *does* matter is
>>> a bit perverse, but the Perl people are not to blame if they use
>>> a term in their usual sense.
>>
>> You may see it this way:
>> Def1. An operator +:SxS->S is left-associative iff
>>    a+b+c = (a+b)+c for all a,b,c in S.
>> Def2. An operator +:SxS->S is right-associative iff
>>    a+b+c = a+(b+c) for all a,b,c in S.
>> Def3. An operator +:SxS->S is associative iff it is both left and
>> right-associative.
>
> I know, but what the mathematicians do make so much more sense:
> (a+b)+c = a+(b+c)    definition of associative.
> Henceforth we may leave out the brackets.

That's Def3. I don't see your point.

> Don't leave out the brackets if the operators if the operators is
> not associative.

(1 - 1) - 1 != 1 - (1 - 1)
and yet we can leave out the parentheses.

> P.S. There is no need for the operators to be SxS->S.
> For example a b c may be m by n, n by l, l by k matrices respectively.

Ops, you're right.

Kiuhnm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21561

On 3/12/2012 20:00, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article<4f5df4b3$0$1375$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it>,
> Kiuhnm<kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it>  wrote:
>> On 3/12/2012 12:27, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>>> Interestingly in mathematics associative means that it doesn't matter
>>> whether you use (a.b).c or a.(b.c).
>>> Using xxx-associativity to indicate that it *does* matter is
>>> a bit perverse, but the Perl people are not to blame if they use
>>> a term in their usual sense.
>>
>> You may see it this way:
>> Def1. An operator +:SxS->S is left-associative iff
>>    a+b+c = (a+b)+c for all a,b,c in S.
>> Def2. An operator +:SxS->S is right-associative iff
>>    a+b+c = a+(b+c) for all a,b,c in S.
>> Def3. An operator +:SxS->S is associative iff it is both left and
>> right-associative.
>
> I know, but what the mathematicians do make so much more sense:
> (a+b)+c = a+(b+c)    definition of associative.
> Henceforth we may leave out the brackets.

That's Def3. I don't see your point.

> Don't leave out the brackets if the operators if the operators is
> not associative.

(1 - 1) - 1 != 1 - (1 - 1)
and yet we can leave out the parentheses.

> P.S. There is no need for the operators to be SxS->S.
> For example a b c may be m by n, n by l, l by k matrices respectively.

Ops, you're right.

Kiuhnm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21563 — Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af

In <m0scsu.8xu@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, on 03/12/2012
   at 07:00 PM, Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> said:

>I know, but what the mathematicians do make so much more sense:

Not really; Mathematical notation is a matter of convention, and the
conventions owe as much to History as they do to logical necessity.
The conventions aren't even the same from author to author, e.g.,
whether "field" implies Abelian.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21573

On 3/12/2012 20:00, Albert van der Horst wrote:
[...]

Sorry for triple posting. I hadn't noticed the follow up and I was 
blaming my newsserver.
BTW, Python is the next language (right after Perl) I'm going to learn.
Then I'll probably have a look at Ruby...

Kiuhnm

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web