Re: What languages have huge standard libraries?


"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1de94b87e900cadb98a7a1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <JOeff.16704$7h7.924@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> adaworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> > "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> > > > I realize that, under the folklore model, "steep" means difficult.
However,
> > > > under the mathematical model, steep means just the opposite. If one
> > > > prefers folklore to mathematics, so be it.
>
> > > If a definition of 'steep learning curve' is required, one consults
> > > neither folklore nor mathematics, but current usage in the context in
> > > which it was deployed - in this case general discussion about
> > > programming languages.
>
> > > In which case the common usage means something like 'requiring a lot of
> > > effort to get anywhere'.
>
> > That, of course, is a folkloric intrepretation and lacks intellectual rigor.
> > The fact that so many people get it wrong does not make it right.
>
> On the contrary, it is a lexicographic interpretation. The meaning of
> words and phrases evolves, and is determined by usage, not
> prescription.
>
> Words and phrases can have separate technical and informal meanings, of
> course, sometimes many.
>
I would think that, this being a forum for technical discussion, that there
would
be a bias toward rigorous intellectual discipline. When one says "steep" there
is the assumption of some metric. A metric is a relationship between two or
more values. How is that metric described mathematically? What are the
factors? What is the scale?

Abraham Lincoln once posed the question to someone, "What do you call a
dog when you consider its tail to be a leg?" His own answer was, "It is still
a dog. Calling the tail a leg does not make it so. It is still a dog." I have
paraphrased this since (speaking of intellectual rigor) I am too lazy to look
up the exact quote.

The general population gets science wrong a lot. That does not relieve us
from the responsibility to strive, in our own writings and conversations, to
get it right. There are people who read horoscopes daily in the foolish
belief that the configuration of stars influences their love life. There is
a growing number of people who believe that the "dark matter" that some
scientists believe is omnipresent throughout the universes is actually God.
There are people who believe all sorts of things that have not scientific
or factual basis.

This is a forum focused on technology. Even in this forum people make
absurd statements from time to time. The adopt schemes for building
software that are more wishful thinking than reality, the make assumptions
about technologies they have never used or studied, but can pronounce
good or bad based on hearsay, and they fail to cite sources or scholarly
research to support their assertions. Still others do bring intellectual
rigor to their contributions. These latter contributors are making a
real effort to think through their statements, as well as take care in how
they express their viewpoints.

I realize that, within Internet forums, sloppy scholarship, crackpot science,
halfbaked ideas, and mischievous wierdness too easily find an audience
all over the world. Such freedom of alternative viewpoints is a price we
pay for the benefit of discovering new ideas that emerge in the private
laboratories and experience of software practitioners who might otherwise
remain obscure. Further, challenges to ill-conceived ideas, even by some
whose own ideas are equally flawed, does have entertainment value.

If you wish to use a non-rigorous, non-scientific, flawed mathematical,
foundation for your assertions, so be it. It is not my job to change
you. However, you might, reluctantly, benefit from knowing
that you are not standing on firm intellectual foundation when you
misuse otherwise useful scientific language.

Richard Riehle


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: simulating local lexical variables with symbol macros
    ... In your previous post you cited a certain usage of `pathological' in ... was using it in the sense used in mathematics. ... what my intention and meaning was. ... false claim on false claim, wronga assumption upon wrong assumption with ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Infix KIF
    ... discussing a KIF variant that uses the familiar infix syntax rather ... but I strongly suggest that you go to a more appropriate forum (such as ... task of doing the writing yourself, and want someone who you see as ... mathematics, write as a mathematician, and write directly to them. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: simulating local lexical variables with symbol macros
    ... burst of no less than than than four preposterous remarks each just ... |> | In a previous post I challenged your accepted usage and showed it to ... |> was using it in the sense used in mathematics. ... If you accepted my explanation and my intent is clear, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • PLMMS 2009: First Call for Paper
    ... The ACM SIGSAM 2009 International Workshop on Programming Languages ... for Mechanized Mathematics Systems will be co-located with TPHOLs 2009. ... Final Papers Due: July 10, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • PLMMS 2009: First Call for Paper
    ... The ACM SIGSAM 2009 International Workshop on Programming Languages ... for Mechanized Mathematics Systems will be co-located with TPHOLs 2009. ... Final Papers Due: July 10, ...
    (sci.math.symbolic)
Loading