> On a related note, lambda syntax is not really simple. > Consider: > ((lambda (x y) (+ x y)) 2 3)
Well, that's *one* form of lambda syntax, viz. the Scheme variant In Haskell you'd write \x y -> x+y Hardly rocket science. But I think the point is that that however awkwardly you may choose to codify it, lambda is brilliant in its simplicity and accessibility of understanding. Static scoping is a no-brainer for managing complexity. I agree that the inability of abstracting J more than two levels (as already mentioned) is a serious PITA, and probably the most inexplicably klutzy piece of work in an otherwise so elegant system... I mean, needing to combine tacits inside explicits, and gawdknows what other work-arounds! Really? We might have got used to it, but I doubt that many in the real world would. But, of course, I could be wrong.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
