Anton Vredegoor wrote: > > Returning to the original book, why did they write a lot of it (at > least the first few pages until I gave up, after having trouble > understanding formulas about concepts I have no such trouble with when > framed in less jargonized from) in unintelligible mathemathical > notation when there's Python? >
Because the intended audience is probably reads formulas better than they read Python. The 1st sentence of the Introduction: "This book is aimed at senior undergraduates and graduate students in Engineering, Science, Mathematics and Computing". Last month I spent about an hour trying to explain why a*2.5e-8 = x raises a SyntaxError and why it should be written x = a*2.5e-8 The guy who wrote the 1st line has MSc in Physics from Cambridge (UK). In mathematics, there is no difference between the two lines. > I prefer a nice Python function over some strange latech symbols. If > not Python there's always pseudo code or good old natural language. > Don't tell me those math formulas are what it 'really' is, or even that > it's more precise that way. The old trick of 'but there are some things > that cannot be expressed in any other way than by using formulas' > doesn't get one many optimization points in my world. > > Anton > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
