undefined | Better HN

0 pointstim3331y ago0 comments

Although if you look at most maths textbooks or papers there's a fair bit of English waffle per equation. I guess both have their place.

0 comments

dmoy1y ago

People definitely could stand to write a lot more comments in their code. And like... yea, textbook style prose, not just re-stating the code in slightly less logical wording.

hackable_sand1y ago

Yes exactly. Or like signposts on a road.

"You came from these few places, you might go to these few places, watch out for these bugbears if you go down that one path."

WillAdams1y ago

Welcome to the world of advocating for Literate Programming:

http://literateprogramming.com/

sabas1231y ago

As somebody that occasionally studies pure math books those can be very, very light on regular English.

Jensson1y ago

That makes them much easier to read though, its so hard to find a specific statement in English compared to math notation since its easier to find a specific symbol than a specific word.

whatevertrevor1y ago

Textbooks aren't just communicating theorems and proofs (which are often just written in formal symbolic language), but also the language required to teach these concepts, why these are important, how these could be used and sometimes even the story behind the discovery of fields.

So this is far from an accurate comparison.

overfeed1y ago

> Textbooks aren't just communicating theorems and proofs

Not even maths papers, which are vehicle for theorem's and proofs, are purely symbolic language and equations. Natural language prose is included when appropriate.

umanwizard1y ago

Theorems and proofs are almost never written in formal symbolic language.

codebje1y ago

My experience in reading computer science papers is almost exactly the opposite of yours: theorems are almost always written in formal symbolic language. Proofs vary more, from brief prose sketching a simple proof to critical components of proofs given symbolically with prose tying it together.

(Uncommonly, some papers - mostly those related to type theory - go so far as to reference hundreds of lines of machine verified symbolic proofs.)

umanwizard1y ago

Can you give an example of the type of theorem or proof you're talking about?

1 more reply

xpmatteo1y ago

Common expressions such as f = O(n) are not formal at all -- the "=" symbol does not represent equality, and the "n" symbol does not represent a number.

cratermoon1y ago

Yes, plain language text to support and translate symbology to concepts facilitates initial comprehension. It's like two ends of a connection negotiating protocols: once agreed upon, communication proceeds using only symbols.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dmoy1y ago

People definitely could stand to write a lot more comments in their code. And like... yea, textbook style prose, not just re-stating the code in slightly less logical wording.

hackable_sand1y ago

Yes exactly. Or like signposts on a road.

"You came from these few places, you might go to these few places, watch out for these bugbears if you go down that one path."

WillAdams1y ago

Welcome to the world of advocating for Literate Programming:

http://literateprogramming.com/

sabas1231y ago

As somebody that occasionally studies pure math books those can be very, very light on regular English.

Jensson1y ago

That makes them much easier to read though, its so hard to find a specific statement in English compared to math notation since its easier to find a specific symbol than a specific word.

whatevertrevor1y ago

So this is far from an accurate comparison.

overfeed1y ago

> Textbooks aren't just communicating theorems and proofs

Not even maths papers, which are vehicle for theorem's and proofs, are purely symbolic language and equations. Natural language prose is included when appropriate.

umanwizard1y ago

Theorems and proofs are almost never written in formal symbolic language.

codebje1y ago

(Uncommonly, some papers - mostly those related to type theory - go so far as to reference hundreds of lines of machine verified symbolic proofs.)

umanwizard1y ago

Can you give an example of the type of theorem or proof you're talking about?

1 more reply

xpmatteo1y ago

Common expressions such as f = O(n) are not formal at all -- the "=" symbol does not represent equality, and the "n" symbol does not represent a number.

cratermoon1y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse