> This is by no means comprehensive, but as a (probably thought) experiment, try writing reasonable complex code without variable name completion.
So why don't math tools have variable name completion ? and/or why insist on still doing things on paper in 2019 ?
The other things about variable names is that they force you to think about what a variable actually contains. This in itself is very helpful not only for others reading your work, but also for yourself when trying to grasp a problem.
The research mathematicians I work with just stare in incomprehension at the idea of doing their work on any computer-mediated system. Yes, there are things that can be done, and yes, computer proof-assistants have made huge strides, and yes, there are always people at the cutting edge doing amazing work.
But your everyday research mathematician will just stare in disbelief.
I don't know your background, your profile is empty, but it sounds like you are someone who genuinely has no idea of how research in math works, and therefore feel that you really must have a better way of doing things. And maybe you have. But speaking as someone who has a PhD in pure math, and who has worked in safety critical software, I can only say that so far everything you're suggesting just really doesn't make sense.
The reason that for centuries mathematicians use single letter glyphs to represent the things they're dealing with is because it is, for the purpose of doing the work, the most effective thing to use.
> The research mathematicians I work with just stare in incomprehension at the idea of doing their work on any computer-mediated system. Yes, there are things that can be done, and yes, computer proof-assistants have made huge strides, and yes, there are always people at the cutting edge doing amazing work.
I'm not talking about computer assisted proofs or anything like that. Just using a readable syntax and the mathematical equivalent of a word processor would be an enormous step forward. No one is writing books in cursive with a fountain pen anymore either, which is basically analogue to what mathematicians are still doing.
> I'm not talking about computer assisted proofs or anything like that.
No, I'm not talking about proof assistants either, I'm talking about actually doing math using any kind of computer system.
> Just using a readable syntax and the mathematical equivalent of a word processor would be an enormous step forward.
Do you have any idea of how to do that? I've done research in math, and I've written software for safety critical systems. I don't know how to create a system like a word processor for math that would let me actually do the math.
Do you know how to do that? If so, please, let me know.
So why don't math tools have variable name completion ? and/or why insist on still doing things on paper in 2019 ?
The other things about variable names is that they force you to think about what a variable actually contains. This in itself is very helpful not only for others reading your work, but also for yourself when trying to grasp a problem.