A great piece about terminology in computer languages.

    * =E3=80=88The Poetry of Function Naming=E3=80=89 (2010-10-18) By Steph=
en Wolfram.
At: http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2010/10/the-poetry-of-function-naming/

See also:

=E2=80=A2 =E3=80=88The Importance of Terminology's Quality In Computer Lang=
uages=E3=80=89
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/naming_functions.html

where i gave some examples of the naming.

 Xah =E2=88=91 http://xahlee.org/ =E2=98=84

Am 20.10.2010 13:14, schrieb Xah Lee:

> See also:
>
> • 〈The Importance of Terminology's Quality In Computer Languages〉
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/naming_functions.html
>
> where i gave some examples of the naming.
>
>   Xah ∑ http://xahlee.org/ ☄

   "I'd like to introduce a blog post by Stephen Wolfram, on the design 
process of Mathematica. In particular, he touches on the importance of 
naming of functions."

   "The functions in Mathematica, are usually very well-named, in 
contrast to most other computing languages."

   "Let me give a few example. [...]"



It is much easier to improve something good than to invent from scratch. 
When Lisp was born, Stephen Wolfram was still wearing diapers.

For your information: Mathematica was my first Lisp-like language. I 
used it about 10 years almost every day and I love it because of the 
beauty of the concept. But Mathematica has two serious problems: first, 
there is only one implementation and it is commercial, and secondly, 
Mathematica is very, very slowly and does not generate executable code 
that can be used without Mathematica itself. Thus, comparisons to other 
languages, such as Lisp are not fair.

regards
Marc

On Oct 20, 4:52=C2=A0am, Marc Mientki <mien...@nonet.com> wrote:
> Am 20.10.2010 13:14, schrieb Xah Lee:
>
> > See also:
>
> > =E2=80=A2 =E3=80=88The Importance of Terminology's Quality In Computer =
Languages=E3=80=89
> >http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/naming_functions.html
>
> > where i gave some examples of the naming.
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0"I'd like to introduce a blog post by Stephen Wolfram, on th=
e design
> process of Mathematica. In particular, he touches on the importance of
> naming of functions."
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0"The functions in Mathematica, are usually very well-named, =
in
> contrast to most other computing languages."
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0"Let me give a few example. [...]"

thanks for your post. didn' t know you also use Mathematica.

on the aspect of function naming, i think Mathematica is rather unique
in its philosophy. Am not aware any other lang old or new follows a
similar philosophy... possibly except javascript.

> It is much easier to improve something good than to invent from scratch.
> When Lisp was born, Stephen Wolfram was still wearing diapers.
>
> For your information: Mathematica was my first Lisp-like language. I
> used it about 10 years almost every day and I love it because of the
> beauty of the concept. But Mathematica has two serious problems: first,
> there is only one implementation and it is commercial, and secondly,
> Mathematica is very, very slowly and does not generate executable code
> that can be used without Mathematica itself. Thus, comparisons to other
> languages, such as Lisp are not fair.

you are right... thought these aspects don't have much to do with
function naming.

i tend to think that Mathematica is that way due to a unique mind,
Stephen Wolfram. And if i may say, i share much mindset with him with
respect to many lang design issues. (or rather, Mathematica was my
first lang for about 6 years too) But i think rather, Mathematica's
lang design philosophy more has to do with certain pure mathematician
mindset.  This is somewhat similar to how haskell is a lang designed
such that it is much independent of any concept of hardware. Same here
with Mathematica, but on the naming aspect, Mathematica's function
names is designed without even much relation to comp sci lingoes, but
rather, the essense of ideas captured in a mathematical way.

 Xah =E2=88=91 http://xahlee.org/ =E2=98=84

Am 20.10.2010 14:07, schrieb Xah Lee:
> On Oct 20, 4:52 am, Marc Mientki<mien...@nonet.com>  wrote:
>> Am 20.10.2010 13:14, schrieb Xah Lee:
>>
>>> See also:
>>
>>> • 〈The Importance of Terminology's Quality In Computer Languages〉
>>> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/naming_functions.html
>>
>>> where i gave some examples of the naming.
>>
>>     "I'd like to introduce a blog post by Stephen Wolfram, on the design
>> process of Mathematica. In particular, he touches on the importance of
>> naming of functions."
>>
>>     "The functions in Mathematica, are usually very well-named, in
>> contrast to most other computing languages."
>>
>>     "Let me give a few example. [...]"
>
> thanks for your post. didn' t know you also use Mathematica.

Not anymore, unfortunately. New job = no Mathematica. I tried with 
Maxima, but it is considered syntactically Middle Ages. Terribly 
confused (vectors, arrays, matrix, lists, sets - maxima does not know 
the motto of "list for everything").


>> It is much easier to improve something good than to invent from scratch.
>> When Lisp was born, Stephen Wolfram was still wearing diapers.
>>
>> For your information: Mathematica was my first Lisp-like language. I
>> used it about 10 years almost every day and I love it because of the
>> beauty of the concept. But Mathematica has two serious problems: first,
>> there is only one implementation and it is commercial, and secondly,
>> Mathematica is very, very slowly and does not generate executable code
>> that can be used without Mathematica itself. Thus, comparisons to other
>> languages, such as Lisp are not fair.
>
> you are right... thought these aspects don't have much to do with
> function naming.

Yes. I have it written because I see that you like to call Mathematica 
as a counter-example, in many cases.


> i tend to think that Mathematica is that way due to a unique mind,
> Stephen Wolfram. And if i may say, i share much mindset with him with
> respect to many lang design issues.

Yes, me too, alone but for performance reasons, Mathematica in the area 
where I work (image processing) is not suitable. I mean - not research 
or rapid prototyping, but industrial image processing.


> (or rather, Mathematica was my
> first lang for about 6 years too)

Mathematica = first language at all? No FORTRAN/BASIC/Pascal/C?


regards
Marc

On Oct 20, 5:30=C2=A0am, Marc Mientki <mien...@nonet.com> wrote:
> Am 20.10.2010 14:07, schrieb Xah Lee:
>
> > On Oct 20, 4:52 am, Marc Mientki<mien...@nonet.com> =C2=A0wrote:
> >> Am 20.10.2010 13:14, schrieb Xah Lee:
>
> >>> See also:
>
> >>> =E2=80=A2 =E3=80=88The Importance of Terminology's Quality In Compute=
r Languages=E3=80=89
> >>> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/naming_functions.html
>
> >>> where i gave some examples of the naming.
>
> >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "I'd like to introduce a blog post by Stephen Wolfram, o=
n the design
> >> process of Mathematica. In particular, he touches on the importance of
> >> naming of functions."
>
> >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "The functions in Mathematica, are usually very well-nam=
ed, in
> >> contrast to most other computing languages."
>
> >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "Let me give a few example. [...]"
>
> > thanks for your post. didn' t know you also use Mathematica.
>
> Not anymore, unfortunately. New job =3D no Mathematica. I tried with
> Maxima, but it is considered syntactically Middle Ages. Terribly
> confused (vectors, arrays, matrix, lists, sets - maxima does not know
> the motto of "list for everything").
>
> >> It is much easier to improve something good than to invent from scratc=
h.
> >> When Lisp was born, Stephen Wolfram was still wearing diapers.
>
> >> For your information: Mathematica was my first Lisp-like language. I
> >> used it about 10 years almost every day and I love it because of the
> >> beauty of the concept. But Mathematica has two serious problems: first=
,
> >> there is only one implementation and it is commercial, and secondly,
> >> Mathematica is very, very slowly and does not generate executable code
> >> that can be used without Mathematica itself. Thus, comparisons to othe=
r
> >> languages, such as Lisp are not fair.
>
> > you are right... thought these aspects don't have much to do with
> > function naming.
>
> Yes. I have it written because I see that you like to call Mathematica
> as a counter-example, in many cases.
>
> > i tend to think that Mathematica is that way due to a unique mind,
> > Stephen Wolfram. And if i may say, i share much mindset with him with
> > respect to many lang design issues.
>
> Yes, me too, alone but for performance reasons, Mathematica in the area
> where I work (image processing) is not suitable. I mean - not research
> or rapid prototyping, but industrial image processing.
>
> > (or rather, Mathematica was my
> > first lang for about 6 years too)
>
> Mathematica =3D first language at all? No FORTRAN/BASIC/Pascal/C?

yeah. actually the first lang is HP-28s calculator.

=E2=80=A2 =E3=80=88HP-28S Advanced Scientific Calculator=E3=80=89
http://xahlee.org/prog/hp28s/hp28s.html

=E2=80=A2 =E3=80=88Xah Lee's Computing Experience Bio=E3=80=89
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/Personal_dir/xah_comp_exp.html

=E2=98=BA

in short summary, counting only real serious involvement, say, few
hours a day:

=E2=80=A2 1991 to 1994, HP-28s.
=E2=80=A2 1992-1998. Mathematica
=E2=80=A2 1996- html (and later years related css, xml )
=E2=80=A2 1998-2004. Perl, sql, whole unix admin shebang.
=E2=80=A2 2001, 2005. Java.
=E2=80=A2 2005-2006 Python.
=E2=80=A2 2005-2007 PHP (css and some javascript).
=E2=80=A2 2006- emacs lisp.

what's your experiences?

 Xah =E2=88=91 http://xahlee.org/ =E2=98=84