|
in reply to Re^2: Not Everyone Likes Perl, I Guess
in thread Not Everyone Likes Perl, I Guess
'not like calculus'?
i am shocked, shocked i say.
next thing someone is going to say they don't like statistics, or claim they don't enjoy trig, or relish graph theory, or delight in stochastic processes, or revel in real analysis.
heresy, i say. apostasy. impiety. blasphemy. scurrility, let us all shout.
'not like calculus' -- how can such a statement even be uttered? i lack words to convey my disbelief.
(perhaps i misunderstood your post, apotheon, when you wrote you didn't "like" calculus, perhaps that is because "like" is too mild a word, and you prefer something stronger and more appropriate, like "revere" or "love". if so i apologize sincerely and thoroughly for misunderstanding and taking your post of context.)
math is power
water
<g> |
Re^4: Not Everyone Likes Perl, I Guess
by dyer85 (Acolyte) on Oct 14, 2004 at 05:00 UTC
|
Lol! Quite the eloquent writer for a mathematician (not to insinuate that mathematicians can't be writers ;) ), water. I like to think of Perl as being quite different from math. Although a foundation in mathematics such as trig or calc (more algebra than anything, I would think) can help you write better equations and keep your mind sharper, programming (in general) is based upon logic. Math, itself, is logic, but can supersede basic logic and become a language all its own. I, honestly don't mind math, just as long as a problem doesn't end up causing blood to shoot out of my nose! I can't say my favorite weekend activity involves working a quadratic equation and imaginary numbers, but it does help you keep your mind sharp and on-track.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that code is more beautiful than the result?!!
Sorry for the philosophical rant. Thank you all for taking an interest in my little post, here.
Regards,
$curtis="Bye!";
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
False dichotomy. Code and "result" are one.
"There is no mirror."
CopyWrite Chad Perrin
| [reply] |
|
|
y = f(x,h,i) where f=g(h(x),i(x)) ... sound like programming? Or math?
Functional Programming IS basically math, just with exceedingly arbitrary functions doing exceedingly arbitrary tasks. The deeper you go, the theories included all dwell on running time, effiency, statistics, probability ... but usually one doesn't have to go that deep. Graph theory is math. Discrete math is math. Regular expressions ARE Finite Automata, and that's definitely math -- with pretty circles and arrows. Programs are Turing Machines. That's totally math. NP-completeness. Definitely math.
Math is the genesis of science and the glue which the rules of our universe are built upon... Words we could do without, we could have never invented them. But math would exist without our invention of it...
Remember there was computer science before computers!
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
E. W. Dijkstra
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
I don't quite see it that way.
Programming is a symbolic framework for logic. Mathematics is a symbolic framework for logic. Programming is not necessarily mathematics. Mathematics is not necessarily programming.
In much the same way that English and Japanese are both symbolic frameworks for communication, and both English and Japanese can be said to be communication, but neither is the other, so too are programming and mathematics both symbolic frameworks for logic, and both can be said to be logic, while neither is the other.
CopyWrite Chad Perrin
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
Re^4: Not Everyone Likes Perl, I Guess
by apotheon (Deacon) on Oct 14, 2004 at 15:05 UTC
|
Alas, no, you understood me correctly. I am not terribly enamored with geometric maths of any sort (geometry, trigonometry, calculus . . .) but I do tend to enjoy a little algebraic math every now and then. It is probably in part my affinity for the algebraic that draws me to programming, though I think my mild affection for algebraic math probably comes from my respect for and interest in formal logic (i.e. algegraic logic).
So: No, I'm not really interested in calculating volumes of irregular shapes and ballistic trajectories, or in any other application of mathematics to what amounts to hideously complex systems of estimation. I hope you'll forgive this disappointment. Perhaps you'll feel better about it if I tell you that I don't in any way discount the value of such activities, but simply prefer to leave them in the hands of those more temperamentally suited to them.
CopyWrite Chad Perrin | [reply] |
|
|
I think you make a very good point here, apotheon. Wow, all you guys are so intelligent. Like apotheon, I don't think my "sunny" disposition is able to include advanced mathematics as a hobbie. What I love about programming is how all the logic of different statements and functions can essentially create an intelligence which arguably decides and takes an action. I feel such a rush upon creating something that, when personified to an extreme, thinks. I know, I know, you're like, "Man, shut up!" But this is just how I feel about programming. I find that mathematics differs in that it defines nature around us with irrefutible proof and perfect harmony. But when was the last time that you saw straight math display a message that said hello to specifically you?
| [reply] |
|
|
Heh. You've got a wonderful way of looking at it. That's actually much the same sort of learning rush I look for in writing code, but it's harder to find now than it was. I wrote my first "hello world" program when my age was in single digits, and the luster seems to have worn off. It takes more to make me grin like an idiot than it used to, and that's actually kind of disappointing. I'd prefer all the simple pleasures in writing code were just as exciting and induced just as much happiness as they ever did.
Unfortunately, there was a break in my involvement with computers of a few years between when I was very young and learning to program and when I was essentially an adult and getting caught up on the changes in technologies. I'm still not much of a programmer, despite starting at such a young age, because I'm missing the education in that field of endeavor that should have existed somewhere in the middle.
I tend to be quite good at the basics and rather awful at putting them together into complex, useful collections of algorithms. I have that early grounding in the basics, but none of the skill that really builds on that in the meantime. I'm working on getting myself back into the swing of things with Perl, which is ideal for this point in my life because of the fact that I regularly do web development work and also admin Linux machines, so of course I hold high hopes for my ability to learn to effectively use Perl in the future.
Now that I've rambled on with a complete non-sequitur, I'll shut up.
| [reply] |
|
|
