| Okay, I see what you mean. > Maybe you and the other poster have in mind specific fields of math, Yes, because this is about Julia, I assumed we are talking about the specific fields of math that happen to be commonly used in mathematical and scientific computing, such as the ones learned in university math and science courses. > Your implicit assumption that you can divide computer science into a different bucket from “real math” is incorrect, and gatekeeping. It is regretful that we had a miscommunication. I agree with you that computer science belongs into the same bucket as "real math". The thing is, in the context of Julia it is not easy to read "math" as "math, but not only the domains that Julia is concerned in, but really all fields of math, including theoretical computer science". At least thanks to your comment, I see what you mean more clearly, and I think it'll help some other potential readers as well. > but then you need to make claims for why those fields are sufficiently different as to be exempt from applicability of any of the advances in notation observed in other fields. I'm curious to know specifically about the specific advances of notation observed in other fields. By this you mean dot notation for method application? I'm unsure if `a.method(b).anotherMethod(c)` is more advanced than `a |> method(b) |> anotherMethod(c)` (Edit: or `(anotherMethod(c) . method(b))(a)`) notation-wise. |