Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?

[Emanuel Berg]

Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

>> I never used `booleanp' and I never experienced
>> that the boolean built-in type was missing from my
>> "ontology".
>
> If you how to write (and grok) an 'if' you have
> boolean in your ontology. That you dont know that
> you know is ok

I know what a *boolean* is, just not why I would need
a built-in data type to express it.

> most programmers dont get that their 'thinking
> language' is a superset of their
> programming language.

Meanwhile, most university people don't get that
programming languages are tools that should be
employed to do useful things, not runes to be analyzed
like some Noam Chomsky/Indiana Jones would the
paleo-Etruscan from half-disintegrated tomb stones!

> Most today's kids think thats irrelevant but then
> they think UML is relevant. The Dijkstra school
> would tout logic The FP school will tout lambda
> calculus (or dependent types) Even the box-and-arrow
> diagrams of classic data structures books goes
> beyond the language the book claims to be using

The worst part of all that is that if you do it enough
you start to like it. It is sneaky. Then you can never
move on. If kids think UML is relevant all hope is
gone. But I don't think they do - not those
with style.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573