4 ms·
It might also be that your brain is just more used (years of extra experience) to infix notation. So why not take advantage of this ? In the monad world, people
by toolslive 7y ago
It might also be that your brain is just more used (years of extra experience) to infix notation. So why not take advantage of this ?
In the monad world, people also prefer (>>=) to bind.
OTOH, how long does your brain need to get used to other notations?
As an aside, his arguments are completely debunked if you use RPN.
> Commutative: a b + == b a +
> Associative: a b c + + == a b + c +
> ...
- steerablesafe 7y agoWhy do you use infix for ==?
- toolslive 7y agootherwise the challenged would not understand my point ;)
- leethargo 7y agoI thought I might get some anecdotal evidence for this by teaching our daughter Scheme (and prefix notation) before she enters elementary school :-)
- lioeters 7y agoThat sounds great. The syntactic simplicity of prefix notation and Scheme seem particularly suited for early education. I imagine it will help form a intuitive mental model of computation and mathematics, before being taught the classic infix notation. I guess you'll see!
- VMG 7y ago> It might also be that your brain is just more used (years of extra experience) to infix notation. Maybe infix notations is preferred because it aligns more closely to natural language grammar (for some languages)
- steerablesafe 7y agoInfix notation is preferred because the binary operator is visually close to both of its operands. The same equations as GP, but == is also postfix: > Commutative: a b + b a + == > Associative: a b c + + a b + c + == > ... As expressions getting larger and larger the operands are getting farther away from their operators. RPN is great for computers to read and maybe humans to write (RPN calculators). Not so much for humans to read.
- Anthony-G 7y ago> It might also be that your brain is just more used (years of extra experience) to infix notation. I’ve recently started to work with a program that uses Reverse Polish (postfix) notation [1] to implement mathematical equations and I find it very hard to make sense of the equations from the syntax. I hadn’t previously been aware that there were other alternatives to infix notation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation
- marcosdumay 7y agofunction1 >>= function2 >>= function3 >>= function4 or bind bind bind function1 function2 function3 function4 -- Throw parentheses at random until it compiles It's very easy to see why people prefer the operators.