Also, if you're interested in that sort of thing, have a look at the Haskell "Pointfree" style, some interesting similarities to tacit programming.
On 2 February 2015 at 09:39, alexgian <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
