> > I'd say the main interest in array notation is readability, not
> > efficiency (compilers are rather good at optimizing simple loops).
>
> I agree: This is the main interest. I believe this interest is
> misplaced. As I opined earlier, STL has shown that loops can be
> beautiful == readable.
I don't quite agree. As long as the loop is explicit, it takes up
space on the screen or page and makes the algorithm less obvious.
> There is clearly a deeply felt need for software abstractions that map
> one-to-one to the mathematical abstractions one sees in technical
> writing that uses "extended objects"*. This is reflected in the many
Exactly, and that is one of the attractions of OOP in scientific
applications: you can create computer objects that model the real
or abstract objects of your problem.
> efforts to produce a successful array language. It's not clear that a
> successful array language has ever been produced. Perhaps it would be
What's your definition of "successful"? All existing array languages
have satisfied users and even fanatic supporters. So they are
successful in a sense. None has become the one and only, but this
could simply indicate that scientific applications and/or the
preferences of different scientists diverge too much.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Konrad Hinsen | E-Mail: hinsen@cnrs-orleans.fr Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire (CNRS) | Tel.: +33-2.38.25.55.69 Rue Charles Sadron | Fax: +33-2.38.63.15.17 45071 Orleans Cedex 2 | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/ France | Nederlands/Francais ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Object Oriented Numerics List -------------------------- * To subscribe/unsubscribe: use the handy web form at http://oonumerics.org/oon/ * If this doesn't work, please send a note to owner-oon-list@oonumerics.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 20 2002 - 03:20:11 EST