From: owner-3dui@hitl.washington.edu on behalf of Jeff Pierce [jpierce@cs.cmu.edu] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 5:39 PM To: 3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu Subject: Re: notation for 3D interaction techniques Ah, but I didn't lay out my spectrum from most abstract to least. Assuming an audience of software developers, my spectrum runs from most readable (but ambiguous) to least readable (but concrete). Which spectrum you want to use depends on how you're defining the problem and the goal (and what tradeoffs you're prepared to make). My goal would be to find a communication mechanism that tries to optimize both concreteness and readability for the average software developer. Of course, I'm not doing the work so if you prefer a different goal that's cool with me. =) Jeff At 05:03 PM 12/1/00, Chris Shaw wrote: >This is akin to a point I wanted to make earlier. >Jeff's spectrum is wrong: > >> English -- pseudocode -- Python -- Perl -- C/C++ -- abstract notation > >It should be: > >English -- abstract notation -- pseudocode -- (Python/Perl/C/C++/Max/VPL) > >Moving from most abstract to least. Presumably all but English is >Turing-compatible. > > >-- >Chris Shaw Research Scientist GVU Center >cdshaw@cc.gatech.edu College of Computing Georgia Tech >http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~cdshaw