(and scheme lisp) x Python and modern langs [was Re: gossip, Guy Steel, Lojban, Racket]

[Xah Lee]

On Sep 29, 11:02 am, namekuseijin <namekusei... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 set, 19:38, Xah Lee <xah... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > • “list comprehension” is a very bad jargon; thus harmful to
> > functional programing or programing in general. Being a bad jargon, it
> > encourage mis-communication, mis-understanding.
>
> I disagree:  it is a quite intuitive term to describe what the
> expression does.

what's your basis in saying that “list comprehension” is intuitive?

any statics, survery, research, references you have to cite?

to put this in context, are you saying that lambda, is also intuitive?
“let” is intuitive? “for” is intuitive? “when” is intuitive? I mean,
give your evaluation of some common computer language termilogies, and
tell us which you think are good and which are bad, so we have some
context to judge your claim.

For example, let us know, in your view, how good are terms: currying,
lisp1 lisp2, tail recursion, closure, subroutine, command, object. Or,
perhaps expound on the comparative merits and meaning on the terms
module vs package vs add-on vs library. I would like to see your view
on this with at least few paragraphs of analysis on each. If you, say,
write a essay that's at least 1k words on this topic, then we all can
make some judgement of your familiarity and understanding in this
area.

Also, “being intuitive” is not the only aspect to consider whether a
term is good or bad. For example, emacs's uses the term “frame”. It's
quite intuitive, because frame is a common english word, everyone
understands. You know, door frame, window frame, picture frame, are
all analogous to emacs's “frame” on a computer. However, by some turn
of history, in computer software we call such as “window” now, and by
happance the term “window” also has a technical meaning in emacs, what
we call “split window” or “pane” today. So, in emacs, the term “frame”
and “window” is confusing, because emacs's “frame” is what we call
“window”, while emacs's “window” is what me might call a pane of a
split window. So here, is a example, that even when a term is
intuitive, it can still be bad.

as another example, common understanding by the target group the term
is to be used is also a important aspect. For example, the term
“lambda”, which is a name of greek char, does not convey well what we
use it for. The word's meaning by itself has no connection to the
concept of function. The char happens to be used by a logician as a
shorthand notation in his study of what's called “lambda
calculus” (the “calculus” part is basically 1700's terminology for a
systematic science, especially related to mechanical reasoning).
However, the term “lambda” used in this way in computer science and
programing has been long and wide, around 50 years in recent history
(and more back if we trace origins). So, because of established use,
here it may decrease the level of what we might think of it as a bad
jargon, by the fact that it already become a standard usage or
understanding. Even still, note that just because a term has establish
use, if  the term itself is very bad in many other aspects, it may
still warrant a need for change. For one example of a reason, the
argon will be a learning curve problem for all new generations.

You see, when you judge a terminology, you have to consider many
aspects. It is quite involved. When judging a jargon, some question
you might ask are:

• does the jargon convey its meaning by the word itself? (i.e. whether
the jargon as a word is effective in communication)

• how long has been the jargon in use?

• do people in the community understand the jargon? (e.g. what
percentage)

each of these sample questions can get quite involved. For example, it
calls for expertise in linguistics (many sub-fields are relevant:
pragmatics, history of language, etymology), practical experience in
the field (programing or computer science), educational expertise
(e.g. educators, professors, programing book authors/teachers),
scientific survey, social science of communication...

also, you may not know, there are bodies of professional scientists
who work on terminologies for publication. It is not something like “O
think it's good, becus it is intuitive to me.”.

I wrote about 14 essays on various jargons in past decade. You can
find them on my site.

i removed your arguments on other parts about “list comprehension”,
because i didn't find them valuable. (barely read them) However, i
appreciate your inputs on the “do” in Scheme lisp has a functional
usage, and some other misc chat info from the beginning of this thread
on comp.lang.lisp.

 Xah ∑ xahlee.org ☄