On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Christoph Maier < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 11:07 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:44:11PM -0800, Christoph Maier wrote: > > > Anyway, if you program something successfully, you can be reasonably > > > sure that you have formulated the problem completely, without any > > > face-saving handwaving. > > > > It is for historical reasons that mathematical notation was developed > > before computer science languages. Here's a thought....I don't see > > why they couldn't potentially be unified. Why do we necessarily need > > one syntax for math books and one for software? > > It has been tried before. > > Christoph <- Been there. Done APL. > > > Anyway, how's the MIT study program progressing? > I'm wondering whether I should try to play catch up. Well, it's going slow - atleast for me. Partially because of outside influences. I'm currently working through section 2.3.2, but I'll tell you, Lisp is starting to drive me a bit batty. Maybe I should stop SICP, and actually learn Lisp. I'm thinking I could be fighting previously learned habits from learning assembly, Pascal, C and Perl that Lisp is sufficiently foreign enough that I'm not able to understand what the code is telling me. The concepts are coming along just fine, and I really liked how they wrote about the mapping construct. I've used that in Perl, but not all that often. Now I see where I could have applied that construct in ways I came up with a different solution. -- Mark Schoonover, CMDBA http://www.linkedin.com/in/markschoonover http://marksitblog.blogspot.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
