It's honestly so weird that people get hung into maths using tons of DSLs but not in how these DSLs are NEVER explained, there's no glossary, and papers will happily have sentences like "understanding this is trivial for anyone who took elementary maths so i won't explain shit"
Conversation
(also very often functional programming papers will happily commit the same crimes against communicating with people outside of a tiny niche. papers need to be written for larger audiences and i'll die on this hill)
1
1
10
This doesn't mean that everyone needs to understand every detail of your work; but i do consider the inability of a larger (adjacent) audience understanding the core idea of your work a failure of communication.
1
6
I should clarify that i am in favour of maths using DSLs---and think CS should do the same---the problem is that there's zero discoverability about them in the way they're used, and scientists are not helping this by not even including a single glossary or "DSL defined in <book>"
2
5
Yeah, it's a real struggle (particularly as an outsider) to piece together the layers of notation that tend to layer up over time. Trying to figure out how stuff is used based on contextual clues and hunting back trough past papers.
1
3
Yeah, I feel this a lot even with PL papers.
1
3
1
1
Yeah, I share the post on PL notation to people a whole lot! It's such a useful post!