Invited Talk - Guy Steele

> I didn't really understand his talk I think he was too abstract Then you better stay away from another talk at the same conference, by Guy Steele [0] ! [0] [VIDEO]

Not directly math but Guy Steel's talk at Clojure Conj [0] on computer science type notation touches on related issues and is a great watch. 0. [VIDEO]

You would probably enjoy this talk by Guy Steele where he discusses the language of mathematics that computer science people use in their papers (Computer Science Metanotation) to talk about other languages. Funnily it's untyped and lacking a rigorous specification... [VIDEO]

It's part of an arcane knowledge that is seldom reified. "It's Time for a New Old Language" – Guy Steele [video] (youtube.com) [VIDEO] [LINK] He calls it "Computer Science Metanotation".

The context here isn't the average American, but a high school student taking an AP test involving writing math -- where scoring well counts for the same credit as having passed the equivalent entry level course(s) in college. Besides, math is already pseudo language on top of pseudo language. Learning notation is part of math, I'll concede learning to type an expression on a computer is a different notation than writing it with pen, but if you can't learn that, why learn math? Each domain does its own thing too and isn't even necessarily consistent. Guy Steele gave a great talk a few years ago on "Computer Science Metanotation", and that's just one area of math: [VIDEO] (Edit: And to conclude here, learning to read and write with some notation tends to be easy, it's learning what the math actually means that is the hard part.)

Ironically, I ran into this talk by Guy Steele today. He presents the development of the Computer Science Metalanguage. [VIDEO]

For a deeper exposition on language and notation, Guy Steele[0] is the definitive authority :-) - with some discussion here[1]. [0] [VIDEO] [1] [LINK]

Excellent talk by Guy Steele explaining the history of maths/comp notations that can probably lead you to the right path through original sources: [VIDEO] Then have a look at this extremely underrated talk by Alexander Stepanov for basically falling in love with maths (he gives a long view of maths in general adorned with beautiful commentary): [LINK]

Guy Steele Jr. worked on a language called "Fortress." There are a few good talks that he gives: - (toy problem) [LINK] - (parallelism) [LINK] - (languages) [VIDEO]

There was a Guy Steele talk a while ago on this topic. He also gives searchable names for some of the things (eg the ‘2d inference rule diagrams’). He calls it ‘computer science metanotation’, though I think it’s more of a PLT thing. [VIDEO]

You beat me to it. > The most popular programming language in computer science has no compiler, interpreter, or complete specification. It is remarkably concise. It grew over decades; today, dozens of variations are in use. Its complexity has reached the point where it needs to be re-explained every time it is used—but too often it is not; instead, each variant is more or less taken for granted. This has led to ambiguities and inconsistencies. Much effort has been spent in hand-translating, in both directions, between this language and other languages that do have compilers, primarily for the purpose of implementing yet other languages. => [LINK] Guy Steele => [LINK] "A Cobbler's Child" talk at Code Mesh 2017 => [LINK] "A Cobbler's Child" (video on youtube) => [VIDEO] "It's Time for a New Old Language" (video on youtube) => [LINK] Discussion on HN => [LINK] Slides To me this seems like a pretty sorry state of affairs. The folks trying the hardest to speak precisely about the most precise human art use ambiguous and inconsistent notation. wat?

Guy L. Steele: "Don't you think it is ironic that type theorists who want to talk about strongly typed languages talk to themselves with an untyped language" [VIDEO]