Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

One interesting observation that popped into my mind when I read the OP: Mathematicians don't write mathematical notation in papers/books by hand anymore, they use a far more verbose language called LATEX.

Wouldn't it be great if every time you saw a mathematical formula there was a little widget to push that would show you the "source code" in LATEX++, and LATEX++ was like LATEX but made up of stringently defined mathematical operations (like '\element_wise_multiplication' instead of '\plus_sign_with_circle_around_it')? :D



It's good practice anyway in LaTeX to define your own aliases and use them for semantic information. Like in one of my recent projects, I define:

    \newcommand{\disjointunion}{\sqcup}


Now we're getting close to the heart of the matter: In LaTeX it's "good practice" to define the semantics of operators, in programming languages it's an absolute requirement.


Yeah, it's a bummer that LaTeX math notation is really just markup and has no indication of what belongs together and what the purpose of various symbols is.


LaTeX... now that is unreadable. Traditional mathematical notation is just fine.


Well, when I write TeX (and I stick to the "good practice" of defining "semantic" macros for common symbols), I often notice myself finding the TeX source code more readable than the PDF it produces.


Have you seen x86 machine code? ;P


Long ago, when I took a computer architecture course, I learnt the 8086's instruction format. I don't remember a single thing about it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: