On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Wendell P <[email protected]> wrote: > Although at first glance K looks similar to J, it really is not an APL, > since it is based on lists rather than arrays. Most of the > simplifications follow from this. There is no shape, rank, and boxing. > Syntax is cleaner for list operations and control structures. Functions > have more conventional syntax and can take arbitrary number of > arguments.
Um... I'm not sure I'd call K's syntax cleaner. The data structures are simpler, yes. But the syntax seems to have a lot of little rules (which may not be immediately obvious). That's not to say that J's syntax is better - but I think it is simpler. Prove me wrong? Here's J's syntax definition: http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicte.htm Here's J's parsing definition: http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/d332.htm Here's J's special case rules: http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/d310n.htm http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/ctrl.htm And there's J's constant rules: http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dcons.htm I can find some analogs of these components for K, but the syntax definition seems to me to be considerably more complex than J's nine rules. Not to mention things like :[a;b;c;d;e] - assuming I've remembered that right - not that any of this is bad, just not "simpler". -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
