Ric wrote:
> I do see some benefits for having the
> post-install system in a "known" state
Fair point; that hadn't occurred to me. But because of the slow J release
cycle and tendency for installers to sit on the shelf for a while, I think
the greater risk is that the scripts get significantly out of date, than
that the newer ones will have sharp edges (I imagine JAL authors are fairly
diligent about testing before promoting new versions to production).
That said, so long as:
> Newer version of base library available,
> x addons can be updated, x addons not installed.
was both obvious and easy ("type install'all' to get the latest version of
everything, or ''jpkg'' or see
http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/JAL/Package%20Manager/jpkg for more
options), I would be OK with it too.
BTW, re:
> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/JAL/Package%20Manager/jpkg
One problem I have with the J7 beta process in general is that too much
knowledge is implied or assumed. Now, I am a J enthusiast and there was a
time I had a handle on most everything going on.
But that's not true anymore, and even to just test drive the J7 beta I had
to spend a number of hours going through old Forum archives and the Wiki.
The information I needed was all spread out. (That's one reason I posted my
installation methodology in full.)
> For getting J in front of kids/Jnewbies so they can do 2+2 etc,
> I think the JHS interface is fine and in some ways preferable
> to the traditional GUI
I know the browser is fast becoming the new OS, and my GUI habits are
obsolescing. But I don't think we're there yet, and I do think new users
(but maybe not kids?) will expect a traditional GUI.
One reason I harp on the GUI is I'm a die-hard keyboard cowboy and from what
I read in old beta threads, is to use JHS with the keyboard, I'm going to
have to hit esc-esc-alt-double-bucky-Q to open a new IJS, because the
browser already owns so much keyboard real estate. Also, JHS doesn't work
with my preferred browser (Opera), so I have to use a non-preferred browser.
> My ideal would be a single (more attractive) installer that ...
Yep, me too.
> reading between the lines on the forum I hear Jsoftware
> saying they don't have the resources to do that
If so, I wish they would say so explicitly. That would help me prioritize
my effort in the beta process, and in giving feedback.
> would be happy for the Community to do so
I think this has been JSoftware's hope for many years, but so far it has yet
to materialize, with the exception of a few supercontributors. Though
happily their number has grown in recent years, yourself included.
But, cynic (and non-contributor!) that I am, I think this approach is a bit
cart-before-horse. Once we have a large, thriving community, a lot of work
can be offloaded onto it (without asking, even). But until then, someone
with a stake has to invest (a lot) into growing the community to the point
that it is self-sustaining.
I also think it's a little contradictory to want to depend upon the
community, but withhold from it J's greatest treasure: its source. I once
understood this to be part of JSoftware's business model, but now I'm no
longer clear on what their business model is, or whether they even have one
any more (e.g. whether they provide J now as a community service and side
business, and their individual incomes derive from other activities).
Personally, being interested in J as a notation, I'd be much more likely to
contribute effort to extending J as a language, rather than all the
ancillary pieces that are currently accessible to me (the front end, the
libraries, JAL). Especially in areas I can't seem to interest Roger in*.
You know, theory stuff, instead of "real-world" stuff.
Well, actually, through an ex-employer, I do have access to the source of an
old version of J. But again, because I'm not clear on JSoftware's business
model, I'm not sure what I'm allowed to do with it. So I do nothing.
-Dan
* I haven't seen significant changes in the language proper in several
years now.
I don't know if that's because Roger considers the language mature and
stable (and if it ain't broke, don't fix it), or because JSoftware requires
client funding for such changes, or some other reason, but I do know that
I'd happily learn C again if it meant I could play with ideas like the
recent "rank redefinition" thread.
Anyway, if JSoftware open-sourced the language, it might free up some of
Roger's time and superior skill to work on all the hard stuff, like Henry's
SSE3 instructions, parallelism, or lazy evaluation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
