4 ms·
> 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 hierog
by 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 agoWords also inform context (bi-directional), symbols derive their meaning entirely from context.
- yiyus 8y agoThey 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.