Re: New symbolic/numeric/dynamic/intuitive programming language

On Feb 21, 4:53 pm, "mensana...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <mensana...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

Actually, we're intentionally giving that low priority in the
early versions.  

Big mistake. That limits your user base to K-12 teachers only.

Nah. Statisticians never assume their numbers are in base 2,
mathematicians never assume that integers are always represeneted
as base 2, scientists never assume their data is in base 2,
etc. For most users, the 32/64 bitness of computers is an
annoyance they wished they didn't have to deal with. With
Flaming Thunder, they don't.

The reason is that from a user's viewpoint,
who cares what base the computer hardware uses?  

Huh? Sounds like someone is clueless about how computers work.

Who?

Base 2,
base 7, base 10, their programs should run the same no
matter what the base is.  

Because those are only representations of numbers. The actual
numbers are ALWAYS base 2 ...

Base 2 is only a representation of numbers, too. Actual numbers
are constructs of the human mind, indepedent of base.

And computers didn't always, and may not in the future, use
base 2 to represent numbers. Some early computers used base 10,
and the IBM 370's used base 16 for floating point.

Many computer algebra systems internally represent their
data as base 10^LargestPowerThatFitsTheWordsize for faster
input/output.

and the above statement is only true
if you never have to print the results.

Most people print the results in base 10 instead of base 2.

Hamming Distance (bit positions that differ bewteen two numbers),
Population Count (number of 1-bits in a number), Scan1 (position
of least significant 1-bit), etc. are NOT irrelevant to
mathematicians,
scientists (computer or any other kind) and engineers.

True. But there are far more applications than those
that don't require base 2, which is why base 2 is low on our
priority list. Most users so far want the 3D graphics from
DPGraph faster, not base 2 operations.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > Albert Wagner wrote: ... >> 'mathematicians stock and trade'. ... > first computing machine was ever designed, algorithms for solving ... > with definite limits were developed long before computers. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > Albert Wagner wrote: ... >> 'mathematicians stock and trade'. ... > first computing machine was ever designed, algorithms for solving ... > with definite limits were developed long before computers. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > Albert Wagner wrote: ... >> 'mathematicians stock and trade'. ... > first computing machine was ever designed, algorithms for solving ... > with definite limits were developed long before computers. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > 'mathematicians stock and trade'. ... And a postulate is a postulate and a theorem is is theorem. ... first computing machine was ever designed, algorithms for solving ... with definite limits were developed long before computers. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > 'mathematicians stock and trade'. ... And a postulate is a postulate and a theorem is is theorem. ... first computing machine was ever designed, algorithms for solving ... with definite limits were developed long before computers. ...
    (sci.physics)