[under construction, and arithmetic needs re-checking]
The X3J3 committee (ca. late 1980's) did not accept my suggestions for improving the FORTRAN programming language that had seen several years developments since I first learned to read it upside down ca. 1969, by watching the efforts of a college sophomore (I was a freshman) in the study lounge at UCSD Muir College - I was a mathematician, and this advanced adding-machine code looked formalized enough to read as-is, or as-was, ... later I learned that FORTRAN read right-side-up was no easier (I would directly turn the printout upside down to debug it).
The mathematician presses to find the fundamental rules of the universe, of numbers, and might reasonably expect the computer theorist to do the same - these days computer sciences have replaced the earlier information sciences - were it not for the open market place (which is a difficult place to think deeply, study, or converse intelligently) we might have a truely scientific computation language ... and this is my premise ... I shall use this page to present some of the ideas I've come across for generalized scientific computation linguistics, fairly similar to mathematics - for which I do have suggestion as well - and extensible from the basic programming languages ... I'd have had these improvements a quarter century ago, because I needed them to program rapidly: the lack of these usually resulted in long hours of re-reading which afforded no insight into the nature of computers and computing, but indicated the 'kluge-iness' many market trainees assume when given any new technology. As the higher technology needs a consistency not caused by 'we-put-the-wall-here' expediencies but by the ever receding limits of the sciences, we shall reconsider here what ForTran'92 should (have been) according to the higher criticism of mathematics.
I like the english-ness of mathematics: I expect to use, k=1,2,3 , as a way to specify three values of the variable 'k' - albeit it, temporally sequentially equal - in fact i,j,k=1 should mean all three variables 'i,j,k' are given the value '1' .
I set punctuation apart from the arithmetic - I'd prefer to do this in plain English , too ... especially in a computer-related field , as close-punctuation subordinates to the words themselves, rather than to the sentential phrase.
I'd like to say, Let g : g x = 2x , define the [function] 'g' , where 'g' on/at some 'x' takes the value x-squared ... notice that no parentheses are needed here: this is more the mathematics of terse, minimal talk. This could be shorter as, Let g x = 2x , but then, g y , is another [function] related conceptually more than variable-substitutably to g x ... we do this sort of distinguishing in mathematics all the time, especially with generalized operators such as the differential d y / d x .
I also like very much spacing letters into mathematical sentences, rather than packing them together like pseudo words: ln x , is not, l n x ... so that DO10K=1,9 is distinct from DO 10 K=1,9 .
A premise discovery under the title,