2009/1/15 Derek Elkins <derek.a.elk...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 18:27 +0000, Lennart Augustsson wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Mathematical precision isn't appropriate in all disciplines. >> > >> That's very true. But programming is one where mathematical precision >> is needed, even if you want to call it something else. >> > Actually programming requires -far more- precision than mathematics ever > has. The standards of "formal" and "precise" that mathematicians use > are a joke to computer scientists and programmers. Communication is > also more important or at least more center stage in mathematics than > programming. Mathematical proofs are solely about communicating > understanding and are not required to execute on a machine.
Hmm. I could argue that coding *terminology* and words used for human-to-human *discussion* of programs can afford to be far *less* precise, simply because the ultimate precision is always available in terms of actual executable code (which offers no scope for misunderstanding - it's a concrete, executable object, with precise semantics defined by the implementation). Mathematical terminology has to be much stricter, because there's no fallback of "use the source". That's not to say that I disagree entirely, but it's not as black-and-white as this discussion makes it seem. Paul. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe