
Frink Programming Language - BerislavLopac
http://frinklang.org/
======
crimony
I'm regularly reminded of the "Alan's editorializing" commentary in the
"units.txt" file, which contains gems such as:

[in candela := cd]: "I think the candela is a scam, and I am completely
opposed to it. Some good-for-nothing lighting "engineers" or psychologists
probably got this perceptually-rigged abomination into the whole otherwise
scientific endeavor...

...What an unbelievably useless and stupid unit."

[and in Hertz := Hz]: "Here is YET ANOTHER place where the SI made a really
stupid definition...

... Either way, if I ever develop a time machine, I'm going to go back and
knock both groups' heads together. At a frequency of about 1 Hz. Or better
yet, strap them to a wheel and tell them I'm going to spin one group at a
frequency of 1 Hz, and the other at 1 radian/s and let them try to figure out
which one of those stupid inconsistent definitions means what. Hint: It'll
depend on which time period I do it in, I guess, thanks to their useless
inconsistent definition changes."

~~~
lioeters
Not sure I understand the second quibble. 2π radians per second = 1 hertz seem
simple enough?

~~~
jml7c5
I believe his complaint is that SI defined 1 Hz as 1/s, not as 2π/s. So 2π Hz
in the new definition is 1 Hz in the older.

It does make the Hz unit a bit redundant (saying "hertz" is no faster than
"per second", and tends to obscure rather than elucidate). Though I do believe
it ultimately has saved confusion as it means the 2π multiplier must be
explicit,, which prevents accidental confusion between cycles per second and
rate of rotation.

~~~
lioeters
Thank you, after reading the above, I went to the source, Alan Eliasen's
units.txt.

You're right, there's a history of changing standards. Without having much
familiarity with the topic, I'm inclined to agree that the unit of frequency
based on cycles per second, in radians, is more consistent than a "radian as
the dimensionless number 1" per second.

\---

[https://gist.github.com/cyrex562/6c7a7cdae68583c02f42658b32e...](https://gist.github.com/cyrex562/6c7a7cdae68583c02f42658b32e9a7ce#file-
units-txt-L743)

The Hz is currently defined simply as inverse seconds. (1/s). See:
[http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html](http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html)

The base unit of frequency in the SI _used_ to be "cycles per second". This
was fine and good. However, in 1960, the BIPM made the change to make the
fundamental unit of frequency to be "Hz" which they defined as inverse seconds
(without qualification.)

Then, in 1974, they changed the radian from its own base unit in the SI to be
a dimensionless number, which it indeed is (it's a length divided by a
length.) That change was correct and good in itself.

However, the definition of the Hz was _not_ corrected at the same time that
the radian was changed. Thus, we have the conflicting SI definition of the
radian as the dimensionless number 1 (without qualification) and Hz as 1/s.
(Without qualification.)

This means that, if you follow the rules of the SI, 1 Hz = 1/s = 1 radian/s
which is simply inconsistent and violates basic ideas of sinusoidal motion,
and is simply a stupid definition. The entire rest of the world, up until that
point, knew that 1 Hz needs to be equal to _2 pi_ radians/s or be changed to
mean _cycles /second_ for these to be reconcilable. If you use "Hz" to mean
cycles/second, say, in sinusoidal motion, as the world has done for a century,
know that the SI made all your calculations wrong. A couple of times, in
different ways.

This gives the wonderful situation that the SI's Hz-vs-radian/s definitions
have meant completely different things in the timeperiods:

* pre-1960

* 1960 to 1974

* post-1974

------
loa_in_
I really appreciate frequent updates on Android (android app on Google store),
so currency rates etc. are always at least recent.

------
tzpbingo
Is source code available?

------
DannyB2
Is source code available?

