Personally, I think that the dissect tool does a good job of exposing to the user how a tacit verb functions.
More generally, one of the first things I reach for, when trying to understand a coding concept, is a relevant example. And, dissect helps me work through examples. And, at some point, we have to understand that propellerheads can and do make useful contributions. They are not our entire audience, but trying to exclude them strikes me as foolish. And, on the flip side, having some good targets to absorb random pushback is probably a good thing. There's always going to be that someone who is going to push back and that's something we need to somehow cope with. And... that said... I guess I should put up a draft of this page so we can argue about its details and shortcomings. Thanks, -- Raul On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 2:02 PM Ian Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Really now: isn't that for J experts only? > > No – and yes. > ++ No because I think that a verb definition that reads explicit but acts > tacit has enormous appeal for a J learner. > ++ Yes because when I played around with it, it defied all my reasonable > (??) attempts to generalize it. So it's stuff for experts only: far more > expert experts than me. > > There is a sizeable suppressed need for a reliable tool doing explicit <--> > tacit. > Currently all we offer is (13 :) and tte, both of which usually bail out > like Bugs Bunny's autopilot, plus a ragbag of tricks and tips of the > how-to-lose-weight-and be-rich-and-happy kind. How about a "dissect" for > verbs instead of nouns? > > Learners want science (or at least technology) – and we give them alchemy > (or at least cookery). If I had a black chip to gamble on helping J shake > off its propeller-headed image, here's the square I'd plonk it down on. > > End of rant. (I'm working on that post for Chat.) > > Ian > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 03:41, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Good point. > > > > I agree that tacit programming is best left as an advanced topic. > > > > What we have here is an explicit adverb that produces a desired verb > > result. Most users wouldn't want it - they would want a verb. They can > > do that easily enough. > > > > Raul has shown an elegant way to create an adverb that is readable as an > > explicit entity but performs like a tacit entity. Really now: isn't > > that for J experts only? > > > > Henry Rich > > > > On 11/22/2021 8:21 PM, Ian Clark wrote: > > >> I like that title. > > > I like it too – as the title of an essay communicated between J experts > > > which tersely sums up its contents. > > > But, as the Japanese say: I'm about to utter a rude thing… > > > > > > I think the very word "tacit" should be banned from all material likely > > to > > > be viewed by J newcomers. > > > Specifically, everything in NuVoc above the subheading: "More > > Information". > > > > > > There are two uses of the word "tacit" which I'd wholeheartedly endorse: > > > ++ J promotes itself tacitly. > > > ++ There is tacit acceptance of J's status as Information Technology's > > > number one mystery religion. > > > > > > I guess I'm in the minority over this issue: a minority of one. I'm going > > > over to Chat to expand on my views on the matter. > > > > > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 15:11, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> I like that title. > > >> > > >> Henry Rich > > >> > > >> On 11/22/2021 8:56 AM, Raul Miller wrote: > > >>> Hmm... > > >>> > > >>> One issue here is that the specific example in this thread was > > >>> "pretty" because of two arbitrary obstacles: > > >>> > > >>> (1) email line wrapping, and > > >>> > > >>> (2) it was an ad-hoc cd call with a large cd signature. > > >>> > > >>> In other words, there's a niche for this kind of thing, but outside of > > >>> email exchanges there's less pressure to use this technique. And, it's > > >>> worth thinking about alternative examples (like maybe tacit > > >>> expressions which contain an agenda with a large gerund). > > >>> > > >>> So, anyways, ... I've been trying to come up with some better examples > > >>> > > >>> But turning this into a wiki page raises another issue: what would be > > >>> a good name for that wiki page? Would "Tacit Valued Explicit > > >>> Definitions" be sufficiently evocative? > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > >> https://www.avg.com > > >> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > > -- > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > https://www.avg.com > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
