Edward Cherlin wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 09:33, Christian Mascher <christian.mascher@gmx.de> wrote:
Edward Cherlin wrote:
[sigh]
Do math tables in a math array language.
degrees =. i. 91 NB. 0..90
radians =. degrees * o. % 180
table =. |: degrees, 1 2 3 o./ radians
<snip>
Python is much nearer to standard Math-notation, that is a good thing.
LOL. Math notation is what mathematicians use, not schoolchildren. They are constantly inventing more of it. What you call math notation is known to mathematicians as "arithmetic".
There is no standard math notation.
I think what Christian means to say is that Python is much nearer to a notation (pseudocode) that might be used by scientists and engineers who are trying to express an idea involving computation, without relying on a specific language. Of course, there is no "standard" pseudocode, but if you look at textbooks that are most successful at expressing algorithms this way (my examples would be from engineering - Hachtel & Somenzi on Logic Synthesis, Stinson on Cryptography) what you see is a notation very close to Python. Pseudocode has to be self-explanatory. There is no introductory chapter on how to read it. Likewise, an introductory computer language should be close to self-explanatory. It will be difficult to get math and science teachers to accept it, if they have to make extra efforts explaining the notation. Getting math and science teachers to accept computation as a vital part of their curricula is my current focus, so I wouldn't try to push something like your example above. Python is just a means to an end, the closest thing we have to pseudocode. When someone who favors another language (typically Java) asks me why Python, I find the comparison to pseudocode to be the best answer. Specific examples, like the absence of type declarations, tends to invite unthinking reactions. (Students will make too many errors.) Even something as simple as requiring correct indentation is not obvious to someone who hasn't used Python. (Although that one does have some appeal to teachers who have had to read sloppy student code.) Ultimately, it is word-of-mouth, one teacher telling another, that I think will decide which language gets used. -- Dave ************************************************************ * * David MacQuigg, PhD email: macquigg at ece.arizona.edu * * * Research Associate phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * * * ECE Department, University of Arizona * * * * 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * * * http://purl.net/macquigg Tucson, Arizona 85710 * ************************************************************ *