See comments below.
Cheers,
Erling
On 2016-08-01 15:24, Raul Miller wrote:
Just as a note, this strawman:
([: – [: – [: – [: – ])
can (and should) be simplified to
]
I don't think ] is a good example of a number of monadic verbs in
sequence.
Moreover, I do not think "coolness" or "hotness" or "popularity" are
all that good of reasons for using any language. Instead, I would go
for "usefulness" and "expressiveness".
Maybe the audience knows better why people prefer expressions like -&-@-
- ] . I just picked one I could imagine.
Honestly, far too many technical decisions get made for the wrong (and
often contradictory) reasons. But that's people for you, I guess.
I don't understand how this relates to anything I wrote in this article
or elsewhere.
That said, I think J is great for experimental designs involving
computation or where you are not quite sure what the architecture
should be. But I also have had no problems taking the eventual result
and translating it to some more installable language.
I do that too, but I would like a similar language which is easier for a
non-expert to read and where the translation is more straight-forward.
To be able to formulate the target language solution in a higher level
executable language.
I would for example like to be able to take the result of my analysis
and give to the C programmer as a specification.
Fortunately, that looks to be changing.
I don't understand what is changing.
But what first interested me about APL (and, later, J) is that it's
just so incredibly useful for testing your understanding of some chunk
of mathematics. You often do not know, when reading some odd bit of
expression, what exactly the author was talking about. People, for
whatever reason, seem to assume you know what they were thinking when
they write things. And different professional contexts and different
authors all bring different contexts to their writing. And most often
the people doing the writing are not the people who are busy getting
stuff done. So it winds up being a regular "tower of babel" with
fragments of jargon mixed in and the useful parts often left out or
implied, with artistic license used to paper over lack of observation,
and ... so on.
I don't understand how this relates to anything I wrote in this article
or elsewhere.
Anyways, if you don't test your understanding, you don't know if what
you think you understand has any relevance to anything that works.
And, often, it doesn't. Which is sad.
I don't understand how this relates to anything I wrote in this article
or elsewhere.
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
