5 ms·
Really instead it's (accessor object) and (print arg-1 arg-2 ... arg-n) No idea why you suddenly converted the values a, b, c, d to full-blown forms. Bu
by yoro46 4y ago
Really instead it's
(accessor object)
and
(print arg-1 arg-2 ... arg-n)
No idea why you suddenly converted the values a, b, c, d to full-blown forms. But of course, baby duck syndrome will prevail and Minsky's comments are painfully true to this day: "Anyone can learn it [Lisp syntax] in a day, unless they know Fortran, in which case it's three days."
P.S. Making general comments about "math notation" is pretty dishonest argument. The math I studied was all commutative diagrams and blobs to represent manifolds; very little "infix operators" as far as I could tell. Mathematicians in general are flexible with notation (and definitions!) and will normally default to whatever is the loose consensus in their field :)
- wiseowise 4y ago> But of course, baby duck syndrome will prevail and Minsky's comments are painfully true to this day: "Anyone can learn it [Lisp syntax] in a day, unless they know Fortran, in which case it's three days." That’s hilarious, where did he say that?
- Jtsummers 4y agoI'm only finding the quote, no source. But here's something we can be sure he said: > The complete syntax of LISP can be learned in an hour or so; the interpreter is compact and not exceedingly complicated, and students often can answer questions about the system by reading the interpreter program itself. https://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/TuringLecture/TuringLecture.html https://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/TuringLecture/Turin...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jstimpfle 4y agoNo need to throw offenses. See my cousin comment for an explanation.
- bmacho 4y ago> P.S. Making general comments about "math notation" is pretty dishonest argument. The math I studied was all commutative diagrams and blobs to represent manifolds; very little "infix operators" as far as I could tell. Mathematicians in general are flexible with notation (and definitions!) and will normally default to whatever is the loose consensus in their field :) It is exactly the point of what you are answering: mathematicians too use a flexible, ad-hoc notation. Presumably it is better for them. I don't see how it is dishonest, I find it quiet on point. I guess it needs less ink/chalk, and gives more visual clue about the structure and the content of the equation, than a more uniform, lisp like notation would.