This is the mail archive of the guile@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Language design values (Re: message primitive)


Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> writes:

> Telford Tendys <telford@eng.uts.edu.au> writes:
> 
> > Orthogonality is already defined in mathematics as stating that the
> > dot product of two vectors is zero. I hate to see the word applied in
> > a hazy way to computer languages since no one can give it a solid
> > definition. If you are suggesting that any given computer behaviour
> > should only be achievable by exactly one program (or none at all)
> > then that seems like an impossible thing, and not even desirable.
> 
> I have never seen "orthogonality" to mean that.  Normally, it means
> that two (or more) different features when used together make sense,
> combine in positive ways, and the specification doesn't have strange
> exceptions to deal with the combination.

I think this is a good description.  It is actually the natural
extension of the mathematical concept:

Mathematics:

If two vectors in a Cartesian system are orthogonal, they are linearly
independent.  A fuzzy description of this is that "each one
contributes something new which is well separated from what was
provided before".

Computers:

NS 32000 had an "orthogonal" instruction set, meaning: It had one set
of addressing modes and one set of operations, and all operations
worked with all addressing modes.

The Intel processors are a good example of a non-orthogonal
instruction set.

/mdj

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]