>From what little I know of it, K does amazing things w/very little code.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Devon McCormick <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm not sure why "whenever we want to work with the characters within a > > line, we'd have to unbox it" is considered such a drawback, especially > > given the "each" conjunction. > > One thing of note, here, is that the K "each" is a single character > (and does less work under the covers, so is faster than J's each). > It's also K's analog to J's "rank" (though - again, it does less and > so is faster). > > So that's a factor of up to 4 in code size, when it's needed, and when > it fits (which is frequently). > > This is one of K's strongest features. K sacrifices a lot to achieve > this, but for the right applications the tradeoffs can be worth it. > > On the flip side, there are a lot of applications where you don't > notice these tradeoffs, and some where they hurt. > > (This kind of issue is a general problem with "language advocacy" - > there will be some good fits, some bad fits, and a lot of "language > agnostic" fits...) > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Devon McCormick, CFA Quantitative Consultant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
