On Mar 7, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Ken Wesson wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Chas Emerick <cemer...@snowtide.com> wrote: >>>> Rather than enumerate the places where sexprs are sub-optimal, it would >>>> save a *lot* of time to simply point out that: >>>> >>>> (a) Every general-purpose programming language notation is a poor >>>> substitute for the "native" notation of every domain >>> >>> Ah, but what, pray tell, *is* "the native notation" of a domain? >> >> Whatever the specialists in that domain say it is. > > Bzzzt, sorry. Their choice seems as arbitrary as any other, much of > the time. Ask yourself this: if aliens from another planet are at > about the same level of development as us, are they likely to be using > the same or a closely similar notation? (Modulo different glyphs and > words -- is the syntax going to be close?)
The "What if...?" [1] question is silly, because notation is inherently bound up in culture, history, and biology; it's the semantics of things that might be similar, and only for the most foundational of disciplines. As a thought experiment, how might a people with far better vision than us and nothing like written language program? Maybe using something like Piet [2]. Signing off, - Chas [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If_%28comics%29 [2] http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/piet/samples.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
