Re: Warsaw Univ. course, was Re: Work on Basic Mathematica Stephen!
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg130994] Re: Warsaw Univ. course, was Re: Work on Basic Mathematica Stephen!
- From: David Bailey <dave at removedbailey.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 00:27:53 -0400 (EDT)
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20130519095011.606CD6A14@smc.vnet.net> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 01/06/2013 11:06, Richard Fateman wrote: > > I have no objection to a data type that might reasonably be called > Vector, or perhaps Sequence, that implements a data structure that uses > sequential storage. I object to calling it List. Indeed, the essence of your criticism seems to be merely that Mathematica gives a slightly different technical meaning to the English word 'List' than that of Lisp! If the head of a Mathematica list was LinkedList, you might have a point, as it is, your criticism is absurd. I might as well claim that either the physics concept of field or the pure maths concept of a field is wrong because they are not the same! If anything, Mathematica's use of the term 'List' is a little closer to its English meaning, in as much as you can access its elements in random order - just as you can with a shopping list! John McCarthy didn't get to coin the computer science meaning of the word 'List' for ever more! Indeed, perhaps the very fact that he chose the word 'List', rather than something more descriptive like 'Chain' meant that he wanted people to concentrate on what it represented, rather than just on how it was implemented. David Bailey http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk