[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New science section



On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Not an exhaustive list, of course.  `science' should of course
> get all the `heavy science' stuff that few people understand.
> 
> This brings up the point that `math' is a science, and perhaps
> the `heavy' research-oriented math and geometry packages could
> also move to science, leaving `math' with math libraries,
> spreadsheets, calculators, MathLab stuff, statistical packages,
> etc.

Calculators and spreadsheets to me are just office utils.  I don't
immediately think "math".  I'm more used to thinking of them as being in
the same category as text editors, calendars, reminder programs and
address books (I know, this cuts a broad swath across our current category
scheme, but that's how I'm used to thinking of them).  Really, what you're
left with when you take out the "heavy science" stuff is a bunch of
calculation aids.  "Calculation" is a hefty category name, "calc" is
cryptic, and "calculators" is not strictly accurate.  Or perhaps
"numerical" if it isn't too cumbersome.  I don't know ... all of these
names lack the simplicity of "math".  Perhaps being the husband of a
"mathphobic" (which, unfortunately, are present in large numbers in the
world at large) is clouding my objectivity. :)

Anyway, yes, I think the "heavy" research-oriented stuff should move
to science, and math should remain for ordinary end-user tools, and
perhaps even change its name to reflect this refinement of its purpose.

Ben
-- 
    nSLUG       http://www.nslug.ns.ca      synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
    Debian      http://www.debian.org       synrg@debian.org
[ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0  1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
[ gpg key fingerprint = 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387  2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]


Reply to: