On Nov 10, 2019, at 20:50, Martin Euredjian via Python-ideas
<python-ideas@python.org> wrote:
>
> > This has nothing to do with representation or input via text
>
> It does, it's an extension of the reality that, after so many decades, we are
> still typing words on a text editor.
And how else would you want to enter code?
APL is words and symbols in a text editor.
Python, C++, JS, Haskell, Mathematica, Julia, etc. are also words and symbols
in a text editor. The only difference is a couple dozen fewer symbols, and I’m
not sure why you think that makes a transformative difference.
Meanwhile, unlike APL, some of these languages have options like Jupyter
notebooks and similar tools that allow you to organize that text into cells and
paste images between the cells or generate them from your code or even include
inline live displays, but apparently that doesn’t impress you at all.
You’ve agreed graphical programming languages where you connect up components
by drawing lines between them are useless for general purpose.
So what exactly are you suggesting we should have instead of text?
And in what way is experience with APL relevant to it?
> In other words, my comment isn't so much about the mechanics and editors that
> are available as much as the fact that the way we communicate and define the
> computational solution of problems (be it to other humans or the machine that
> will execute the instructions) is through typing text into some kind of a
> text editor.
>
> When I say "text" I mean "a through z, numbers and a few symbols that were
> found on mechanical typewriters in the 1960's". My shorthand for that is
> ASCII, which isn't quite accurate in that the set symbols contained in the
> sets where the most significant bits are "000" and "001" (7 bit ASCII) are
> not used other than CR, LF and HT.
Right, most programming languages make do with 80-odd characters, while APL
uses about 100. Most of the extras being variations on letters.
Although actually most languages—including Python, but not including APL—let
you use a few thousand other characters for your function names and other
identifiers. But apparently that isn’t interesting to you, it’s only those few
dozen extra characters being used as builtins that matters.
So, why?
> So, for the most part, programming, for the last 60 years or so --over half a
> century-- has been limited to the characters and symbols found on a 60 year
> old typewriter.
And adding another shift key to add one more bank of a couple dozen makes a
difference how?
And if you want something that can input thousands of characters… well, what
would that look like? Have you used CJK keyboards? They don’t have thousands of
keys, because nobody could use that with human fingers. Instead, either you
have a bunch of extra shifts, or you enter effectively two letters and a number
for each character. That’s not any more expressive, it’s slower and clumsier.
> As I have mentioned in another comment, having had this experience, I fully
> understand how people who do not have the benefit of having communicated with
> computers, not just symbolically, but through a very different paradigm as
> well, simply cannot see what I am describing. It's hard to find an analogy
> that can easily represent this without some common shared perspective. I
> found that music can be that tool. Of course, that requires classical
> training at a level sufficient enough to, for example, read and "see" the
> music when presented with a score.
You keep bringing up music as a comparison, but music notation has far fewer
characters, and they’ve been unchanged for even longer than text punctuation.
The advantage of music is a 2D notation, not more characters.
And the disadvantage of music notation is the same disadvantage of everything
besides text: nobody’s come up with a nice way of entering it that’s even
remotely smooth enough that it doesn’t force you to think about the editor
instead of the music. When I want to generate notation, I don’t use a notation
editor, I play something into a sequencer, edit it in the piano roll interface,
and then convert to notation and tweak a few last things, because nothing else
is usable. And if I want to do it on my phone, I just can’t do it at all.
Just like math, where it’s easier to read notation because it’s 2D, but the
best way to create that notation is to type in code or AsciiMath or TeX and
render that to an equation.
> I have found that trying to explain the value of true notation to people who
> lack the experience and training is always a losing proposition. I'm already
> regretting having started this thread, simply because I know how this works.
> Frankly, it's almost like trying to engage with a religious person while
> trying to discuss the lack of evidence for the existence of supernatural
> beings.
No, what you’re trying to do is engage with a Christian by telling him that his
silly 2000-year-old trinity of father, son, and holy spirit can’t possibly
encompass the wonders of the universe, which you know because you worship a
1500-year-old true quadrinity of father, son, second cousin, and holy spirit.
All of the wonders of APL (that Python, Haskell, Julia, etc., and especially J,
can never approach) come down to a few dozen extra characters that you can type
on a keyboard from the 1970s (but not much later) instead of one from the 1960s
or today.
It’s not that we can’t comprehend what you’re talking about, it’s that we can’t
believe you seriously think this is a big deal, that somehow those few dozen
extra characters mean you’re doing a whole different kind of programming.
You‘re talking about weaker versions of the exact same paradigms we already
have—array-based and Iterator-based and higher-order programming as found in
Python and Haskell and Julia are much more powerful than the limited versions
in APL, and more extensible. Sure, I spell a range with 1..20 while in APL you
spell it with a variant iota character that I don’t know how to type, but why
is that better? The Haskell notation is more intuitive to read, and more like
mathematical notation, and extends to different starts and steps and even
infinite length, and easier to type. What makes that not “true notation”?
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/N433XUPOGBMD3IHY4NG7772DVJIP2KF6/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
