Re: RPN maps to basic mathematic expressions nicely

cr88192 wrote:

   ...

> natural is not readable.
> one can argue all they want that RPN is more natural, but that is not
what I 
> am arguing here.

You argue from your personal experience, and you apply it it others as a 
matter of course. Dose there being more Muslims than Christians make 
Islam "natural"?

> I argue about readability, where I assert that C has the upper hand.
> with C code, I can quickly scroll though some large source file and have
a 
> general idea how it works, not by any real mental processing, but by 
> appearance.
> 
> ...
> 
> so, yes, for example, one has to learn algebra, but this does not mean
it is 
> not worthwhile.
> 
> x^2+y^2, absent defining x or y, can't be simplified further...

What significance does that have? The representation may differ, but 
+[*(x,x),*(y.y)] can be simplified as much or as little as x^2+y^2. In 
exactly the same way that bigots do (and from a similar cause) you make 
refutable claims to sup****t an untenable position.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯