Chris has mentioned that he found it hard getting PM to manage script dependencies, I imagine managing dependencies at the individual verb/adverb/conjunction level would be worse.
I was always bothered by )COPY in APL because it meant that I ended up with multiple copies of the same function. If I fixed a bug or improved one of those functions, I then had to find all the different workspaces that had copied it. I'm sure there were/are solutions, but I never figured them out. The ability to "require" scripts was one of the things that I really appreciated when I moved to J and is also one my motivations for creating Addons - the addon becomes the central source for that code. I can understand the desire to have a clean script with no redundant code but as long as most of the definitions are loaded into locales (something else I really appreciated coming from APL+Win) then the extra code included but not required doesn't impact too much IMO. > From: Don Guinn > > Hope this isn't too far off topic; however, one thing that has bothered > me > about building standalone scripts is the granularity of scripts and > requiring them. You get everything in the script whether or not you > need it > all. I really liked the )COPY command in APL as I could get specific > things > from other workspaces without having to include a lot of things not > needed. > For example: I want to do plots but I will do them using "pd" only. Why > should I have to include the verb "plot" and all the things it needs > which > are not needed for "pd"? Perhaps the writers of the plot script felt > the > same way since they defined a verb called "cut" in jzplot.ijs which > does the > same thing as the verb "cut" in strings.ijs . They didn't want to pull > in > all the other definitions in strings.ijs that they didn't need. > > But the problem with )COPY is that it must list the required name and > all > other names the name needs. Somehow the verb "pd" should specify the > additional names it needs etc. > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Chris Burke <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > The main problem I found with the standalone script business is that > the > > build is often too complex to be done entirely by clicking options in > a > > dialog, but still easy to do in J. So I found myself writing fairly > > simple scripts that did builds. > > > > I still want to retain a simple build capability in future, just to > > assemble the set of scripts in the project into one, but no more than > > that. This is good enough for many projects. > > > > The dependencies tool could be a standalone utility. The code is > already > > there in Project Manager, but needs to be extended to support addons. > > > > Sherlock, Ric wrote: > > > I'm thinking that even if standalone script logic was decommitted, > it > > would still be nice to have some sort of tool for listing the > dependencies > > of a script or project? > > > > > >> From: bill lam > > >> > > >> One reason why code in PM is so complicated is the requirement to > > >> build standalone script. But it is, as now, still incomplete in > that > > >> only J base library can be handled, all other script including > addon > > >> cannot. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
