Re: Language design values (Re: message primitive)

[Lynn Winebarger <owinebar at free-expression dot org>]

On 11 Jan 2000, Per Bothner wrote:

> 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.

   My guess would be that some theoretical computer scientists have worked
out an algebra describing the actions of various operators.  In this
algebraic structure, orthogonality could be rigorously defined.
   Actually, I'm pretty sure this is the case, though I haven't seen the
details.  I know theoretical CS folks (at least those at Indiana U) like
to use category theory (monads in particular) to talk about program
semantics.  And applied logicians certainly use algebraic notions to
examine computation.

Lynn