On 08/06/2015 07:50 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com>" wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 August 2015 at 19:56:37 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/05/2015 07:32 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Mathematical language is geared toward generality and correctness, not
practicality. That makes sens in the context of math, that do not in the
context of every day programming.
I don't see what you are trying to get at here, but I guess it is
almost entirely unrelated to choosing a notation for string
concatenation.
Well, I don't think practicality is the main issue, but the mnemonic
aspect of syntax is important.
It is not unreasonable to make the identity of operators/functions
consist of both name and parameter types like in C++ and D. So you don't
have "+" as the operator name, you have "+(int,int)" and
"+(string,string)".
...
Certainly, but overloading is not always a good idea.
It has been argued that functional languages would benefit from teaching
functional programming in a less mathematical manner (e.g. talk about
"callbacks" rather than "monads" etc):
https://youtu.be/oYk8CKH7OhE
That's not less "mathematical". It is less abstract, maybe. Also, I
think he is optimizing for people who pick up the language on their own.
(i.e. it is not really about "teaching" in any traditional sense.)
