On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:15:14PM -0800, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Yes, but the difference is that the background info for mathematics *is* > precise. There is a directly derivable chain from very few, very simple > first principles the whole way through partial derivatives to the > simplification that derives the chain rule you talk about. This is > simply *not true* for programming in general.
We use carefully crafted physics/math software to efficiently communicate your "directly derivable chain" as little or as far back as anyone wants to go. That is how software comes into this. Programming is just a communication tool. > Even if I start with lambda calculus, it is very hard to get to a useful > description of something as simple as Scheme. Go look at Chapter 5 in > Lisp in Small Pieces. Look at how many "shortcuts" need to be taken to > produce something even remotely tractable, and then start adding things > like functions of variable arity, global and local environments, choice > operators, etc. I've said before that I'm not arguing against need for layers of abstraction. cs -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
