>>12315154>Listen retard, the point is that the notational rigor of mathematics is considerably less than software.This doesn't mean anything. I agree that there's generally less abuse of notation, but if you've done any serious mathematics, you know that being "heavy" on notation doesn't mean that your notation is bad.
>The fact that a popular language can be used for math doesn't suddenly make this less true. *a popular language made its entire evaluation scheme and syntax structure around mathematical application
It's not even about the ease that math can be expressed in programming languages. It's that these languages are made to express specific classes of ideas in specific ways, which is where you get different paradigms. On the other hand, math is a collection of topics with different notation, and it's largely fine but inconsistent between authors - but any good authors take pains to define all terms clearly.
Here, you are trying to differentiate between programming languages and mathematical language, but these aren't objects with meaningful comparison by their very nature. You're honestly protesting the author's quality here - it's entirely possible to make unreadable code with a good language, and unreadable mathematics with a good notation.
