On Tue, 2 May 2000, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> Well, all this is ambiguous. A "big picture" and
> "something moderate" contradict themselves IMHO.
Not necessary. How about moderately big picture? :-)
Seriously, I really worry that Sergey's initiative
does not receive proper attention it deserves
- as you said. Any initiative for that matter.
Some small ones popup here and there. I think
all of this needs some organization. A process
that would push the ideas forward to some
constructive resolution.
"Crying loud" ("if you miss something") is not
a solution. You may get a patch if you are
lucky. But here is a big chance to get something
done in reasonably complete or semi-complete way.
You sound pessimistic about such a process, and
I really do not understand why. On one hand you list
several shortcomings of Haskell that "worry you for
years", then you mention your own goodies that you
have developed for pure joy - which I am sure
(judging by the papers of yours I read) would be
beneficial to this project, then you worry about "jury"
and "their benevolent consideration". Forget about
the later - there is no jury and never be. I am sure
most of us would benefit from an open discussion on
the subject.
We all make mistakes and some of us (if not most) are
ready to admit them - unless we are "priests of science"
jellously guarding our little "altars of science" - quite
ironically described by Truesdell in [1]. I hope this
does not apply to anyone on this list.
Did I coax you enough to head the project, or
at least take a part in it? :-)
> The "object-like" classification of math.
> structures *is not enough*.
Fine. Then let's try to graphically show the static
portion and describe the missing dynamics and
detailed operations in words - as you did in your
examples.
"There is nothing that can be said by mathematical
symbols and relations which cannot also be said
by words."
But to be true to the spirit of the above quot
I should finish it up:
"The converse, however, is false. Much that can
be and is said by words cannot successfully
be put into equations, because it is nonsense."[1]
Jan
[1] Clifford Truesdell, Six Lectures on Modern Natural
Philosophy, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1966]
