4 ms·

I had the same opinion about symbols until I learned some APL. It taught me that symbols can be so useful as they are in math. It is true that non-math people,

by yiyus 8y ago

I had the same opinion about symbols until I learned some APL. It taught me that symbols can be so useful as they are in math. It is true that non-math people, hardware guys, or graphic designers may not be able to understand a complex equation and think it is just some kind of hieroglyph, but the right notation can help to make things more clear. Anyway, it is very likely that, for example, a graphic designer would not be able to understand the Maxwell equations even if we wrote "rotational of the electric field" instead of using symbols. I am not claiming that symbols are always the best solution, but I think they have their place and there is usually a sweet spot for the problem at hand. I'd suggest you to try to keep an open mind. All this said, there are many (way too many) terrible examples.

jlg23 8y ago
> It is true that non-math people, hardware guys, or graphic designers may not be able to understand a complex equation and think it is just some kind of hieroglyph, but the right notation can help to make things more clear. The semantics of these "hieroglyphs" very much depend on the context, though: "a x B" itself only says "apply some operation x to the named entities a and B".
- yiyus 8y ago
  > The semantics of these "hieroglyphs" very much depend on the context We need context to understand words too. What is your point?
  - rounce 8y ago
    Words also inform context (bi-directional), symbols derive their meaning entirely from context.
    - yiyus 8y ago
      They may give some more context, but you usually need to know the domain up to some point anyway. For example: a = &b; may just be a weird bunch of symbols if you don't know C. But my point is that, anyway, for someone who doesn't have any idea about what a pointer is: a is pointer_to b; is not going to make it obvious, and it is going to make a simple program with a linked list a nightmare to read for those who know. I am aware it is also very easy to show an example where symbols are much less helpful than words. Some good ones were given in this thread. I am just suggesting to keep an open mind because I have the feeling symbols can actually make some programs more readable, although finding the right balance is not an easy task.
sitkack 8y ago
It is like symbols once internalized like strings, could be used as a tool of thought.

by yiyus 8y ago

jlg23 8y ago

> It is true that non-math people, hardware guys, or graphic designers may not be able to understand a complex equation and think it is just some kind of hieroglyph, but the right notation can help to make things more clear. The semantics of these "hieroglyphs" very much depend on the context, though: "a x B" itself only says "apply some operation x to the named entities a and B".

yiyus 8y ago
> The semantics of these "hieroglyphs" very much depend on the context We need context to understand words too. What is your point?
- rounce 8y ago
  Words also inform context (bi-directional), symbols derive their meaning entirely from context.
  - yiyus 8y ago
    They may give some more context, but you usually need to know the domain up to some point anyway. For example: a = &b; may just be a weird bunch of symbols if you don't know C. But my point is that, anyway, for someone who doesn't have any idea about what a pointer is: a is pointer_to b; is not going to make it obvious, and it is going to make a simple program with a linked list a nightmare to read for those who know. I am aware it is also very easy to show an example where symbols are much less helpful than words. Some good ones were given in this thread. I am just suggesting to keep an open mind because I have the feeling symbols can actually make some programs more readable, although finding the right balance is not an easy task.

sitkack 8y ago

It is like symbols once internalized like strings, could be used as a tool of thought.