3 ms·
That's an interesting thing to say, because from my unskilled perspective, a set of equations in a math paper really does often require enough background knowle
by comex 14y ago
That's an interesting thing to say, because from my unskilled perspective, a set of equations in a math paper really does often require enough background knowledge and deep understanding that there's not much point giving variables long names - you'll have to study it for a while anyway. Code is not like that; it's fluffier, and can usually be understood on a first read (and there's more of it), so long names are useful.
But maybe I'm just saying that because I'm better at code than mathematics?
- lokedhs 14y agoI think it has more to with mathematicians seeing programming as nothing more than an implementation detail. They spend their time designing an algorithm on paper, writing a paper on it and probably has a whole pile of versions sitting on his desk. They see no value in the program itself and thus they simply translate the formulas to source workout any thought of it being maintainable or even understandable. That said, I do remember seeing mathematicians calling for a better math notation that emphasises readability and longer variable names. I'm not so sure it'll happen though. I prefer to simply avoid having them write code others have to maintain.
- michaelfeathers 14y agoI think there is a lot more to this. Yes, better naming can help at times but when a mathematician is looking at math they are seeing structure. It is a different mode of perception than reading a program as a narrative. It's not better or worse, it's just different.
- Evbn 14y ago> they simply translate the formulas to source workout any thought of it being maintainable or even understandable. Or correctness, sadly.