4 ms·

How can anyone think that deciding on expressions of computation should be done by committee? Imagine mathematicians were to get together to agree on standardiz

by andreyf 17y ago

How can anyone think that deciding on expressions of computation should be done by committee? Imagine mathematicians were to get together to agree on standardized terminology for papers - what a waste of time it would be!

thunk 17y ago
Assuming you're not being facetious, I happen to think mathematics would be more advanced today if a little attention was paid to standardizing its notation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733265 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733265 But don't take that as enthusiasm for committees.
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  Almost no one is enthusiastic about committees. That doesn't make them any less of a necessary evil.
- sandGorgon 17y ago
  '''I happen to think mathematics would be more advanced today if a little attention was paid to standardizing its notation''' ... as well as the tools available to render those notations. http://www.stixfonts.org/pub_geninfo.html http://www.stixfonts.org/pub_geninfo.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project
marcusbooster 17y ago
It seemed to work fine for Haskell.
- viraptor 17y ago
  Really? There are still people who want a rewrite of Haskell's number types to organise it better (numeric prelude). Mainly for stuff like types that implement addition, but multiplication doesn't work for them. And one would think that implementing math is easy ;)
drobilla 17y ago
That is exactly why one of the goals needs to be a small, understandable, core. Committees degrade into uselessness when the discussion degrades into warring over features. Everyone has a pet feature, and nobody lets their pet feature go. When you have a stated goal of minimalism (for at least part of the greater thing you're trying to define), then the argument to include this or that can be a /logical/ one based on whether it is actually /required/.

by andreyf 17y ago

thunk 17y ago

Assuming you're not being facetious, I happen to think mathematics would be more advanced today if a little attention was paid to standardizing its notation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733265 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733265 But don't take that as enthusiasm for committees.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
Almost no one is enthusiastic about committees. That doesn't make them any less of a necessary evil.
sandGorgon 17y ago
'''I happen to think mathematics would be more advanced today if a little attention was paid to standardizing its notation''' ... as well as the tools available to render those notations. http://www.stixfonts.org/pub_geninfo.html http://www.stixfonts.org/pub_geninfo.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project

marcusbooster 17y ago

It seemed to work fine for Haskell.

viraptor 17y ago
Really? There are still people who want a rewrite of Haskell's number types to organise it better (numeric prelude). Mainly for stuff like types that implement addition, but multiplication doesn't work for them. And one would think that implementing math is easy ;)

drobilla 17y ago

That is exactly why one of the goals needs to be a small, understandable, core. Committees degrade into uselessness when the discussion degrades into warring over features. Everyone has a pet feature, and nobody lets their pet feature go. When you have a stated goal of minimalism (for at least part of the greater thing you're trying to define), then the argument to include this or that can be a /logical/ one based on whether it is actually /required/.