the language of mathematics is perhaps the most universal language for computer scientists. pseudocode comes in somewhere after that, and well-known algorithms probably somewhere inbetween. "game programming" is an application of computer science, and the language of game programming isn't necessarily appropriate (and would seem obtuse) to the much larger audience of potential readers outside of its domain. whenever an algorithm is applicable outside of the game programming field, rephrasing its game-specific language might make the most sense to the readers who are intended to read about it.
that having been said, the most appropriate language is obviously that which is understandable by the largest number of potential readers interested in the title and (if there is one) the abstract. s. I have a PhD in Mathematical statistics. So I am not at all against the use of Mathematics. I think the language should be choosen which is most appropriate. For some mathematical proofs about the Big-O behaviour of algorithms there is no other language than mathematics. But for describing algorithms this notation is not suited. D.Knuth choose in the Art of Computer Programming structured English and for a precise analysis MIX. His argument for MIX is, that he writes books for "eternity". Therefore he can not use the latest fashion in programming language. There is some reason behind this argument, but I think that only a few programmers can read nowadays MIX. MIX does also not reveflect the capabilities of modern hardware. Knuth has therefore to rewrite his books in MMIX (Inschallah). Maybe pseudo-Algol would have been more "ethernal" than MIX. But in any case he uses different levels of notation. Chrilly
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
