12/14 I totally don't see any relevance in teaching Lambda calculus in an
undergrad course to describe stupid semantic rules. Fuck Aiken and
his stupid ambiguous exams!!!
researcher)
\_ usually to emphasize its distinction from an algebra. keep
in mind that "the calculus" taught in high school is
really "the calculus of infinitesimals."
\_ this is a simple question but: why do they call Lambda calculus
"calculus"?
\_ It's a way of calculating stuff. and it sounds cool (to a
researcher)
\_ usually to emphasize its distinction from an algebra. keep
in mind that "the calculus" taught in high school is
really "the calculus of infinitesimals."
\_ I actually wish Hilfinger covered some of that stuff.
\_ Hellfinger just asked you completely unrelated questions
pertaining to English lit or what happened on a certain
date in France that never existed. Often times those
answers were as simple as zero or nothing. Nevertheless,
I enjoyed pushing the very limits of my parasympathetic
nervous system.
\_ About dates that never existed? Then the answer is pretty
obvious: nothing.
\_ Has a Hellfinger exam question list been compiled?
I know two: one about some british poem and another
about some Spanish/Mexican revolutionary figure.
And i think it was french lit and english date.
\_ "someone" should definately do this... I remember two:
what was the HMS Java? I don't remember the answer
but can look it up. The other was a line from "Ode on
a Grecian Ern". If more people post them, I can
compile the list.
\_ this is a good idea. A question from one of my exams was
"Where do the poppies blow, between the crosses, row on
row?" (A: In Flanders Field)
\_ If you're going to teach language semantics,
at all, there are two ways to do it. (a) Operational
semantics, in which your language description is written
in something that works like Tcl. This is icky and went
out of vogue in the 70s. (b) Denotational semantics,
in which your language description is written in something
that works like Scheme (the Lambda calculus). Thank
God that your undergrad compiler class is not about stupid
shit like how to write a lexical analyzer, like mine was.
Also, http://m-w.com's definition of "calculus":
1 a : a method of computation or calculation in
a special notation (as of logic or symbolic logic)
If semantic rules are stupid, then what exactly is a
programming language? -blojo
\_ Programming languages are hard. Let's go shopping!
\_ lexical analyzers are not "stupid shit".
especially the practical applications of 172 stuff.
and neither are lambda calculus or type systems.
how can you justify asserting that they are? this whole
thread is just bizarre.
\_ well, they're kind of over-kill in general when all
you really need is an s-expr reader.
\_ How quaint; how '50s. Dude, humans were not made to
read s-expressions.
\_ I wasn't made. I was born. -human
\_ A lexical analyzer is a necessary component of a compiler
and it's worth maybe spending a week talking about them.
It is NOT worth spending 1/3 to 1/2 a semester talking
about them and doing major projects regarding them.
Any programmer with a clue can write a lexical analyzer.
It just takes general programming knowledge. The important
knowledge in compilers, the domain-specific stuff that the
class should be spent teaching, is all about semantic
analysis, code motion, and maybe provability. -blojo
\_ Um. I can write a lexer very quickly with automated tools
like Lex. Very quickly == hours, not days.
\_ Yeah, that's like my point, see. -blojo
\_ lexical analysers are good for building language -> machine
translators, but the underlying theory is useful as a basic
model of computation. knowing all the DFA, NFA, REGEXP
equivalence shit is really useful if you do CS.
also, there is a lot of theory that goes behind building
YACC. you could either use YACC as a customer (as in the
way compiler writers do) or you could delve into the theory,
like the way language people do. i think you're a lazy
bitch if you think this shit is bunk. -ali
\_ Bunk! Bunk! |
http://csua.com/feed/