Re: RPN maps to basic mathematic expressions nicely

"Jerry Avins" <jya@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:8v-dnaZkFIBY-N7anZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cr88192 wrote:
>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:0qadnRaZILrcj97anZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> cr88192 wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>> news:XLGdnQv36Ipbid_anZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> cr88192 wrote:
>>>   ...
>>>
>>>> but, what I am talking about is not what is "natural", but "generally

>>>> superior".
>>> I must have misread you. By what criterion is infix "generally
superior" 
>>> to RPN?
>>>
>>>   ...
>>>
>>
>> one reason:
>> spatial associativity (operators are often between what they relate
to);
>> tradition (people have long since used such conventions);
>> abstraction (the syntax is not necessarily tied to the underlying 
>> machinery);
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>> so, the question is not, which is more natural, but which is
better...
>>> Please define "better". Better for what?
>>>
>>
>> better for humans.
>
> There you go again. If it's better for you, it's better for humans. Bah!

> It's not better for me for all purposes, and I think I'm human.
>

....

>> machine cost can be ignored, as can parser/complier complexity (usally 
>> only much worry to compiler writers);
>> ...
>>
>> so, the question is, what "looks" best, and what form requires the 
>> minimal level of mental involvement to process.
>
> What looks best to you doesn't necessarily look best to me. Don't you
get 
> it? It's most unlikely that I'd lust after your woman, or you mine.
>

I am alone...

I have a situation here that hardly gives me much hope.
in this respect everything is pointless it would seem...


>> for example, if one can just quickly scroll the code past and know
about 
>> how it works, that is good.
>> if one actually has to 'read' the code (aka: a good solid look, not
just 
>> a quick glance before they next press 'page down'), that is not so
good.
>
> I have to actually read C, even code I wrote. I'm more likely to be able

> to skim Forth, but not without occasional embarrassing errors, as the 
> folks here know.
>

ok.

<snip>

not up to responding to the rest right now.