To once again restate this.
My article is about JWithATwist and the choice of syntax between the
tacit J syntax and a modified explicit J syntax.
https://erlhelinfotech.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/jwithatwist-or-tacit-j/
My article contains some points supposed to show that the tacit J syntax
is a "total mess of utter complexity".
Your comments seem to be mostly about this point:
1.
"People tend to avoid writing expressions like [: – [: – [: – [: – ] to
execute a number of monadic verbs in sequence, probably because it
reveals that the notation is not good. Instead they tend to write
something like this -&-@- – ] and pretend that they use a cool language.
The amount of complex functions used for simply routing the right
argument to the right function obscures the logic."
We have endless discussions about details in this point, like the word cool,
and the example of a number of monadic verbs in sequence, [: – [: – [: – [: –
], the strawman.
I don't understand that this example can reasonably be misunderstood, but Raul
misunderstood it in the same way as you and I explained.
"I don't think ] is a good example of a number of monadic verbs in
sequence."
After this followed more misunderstandings. Then we went on to discuss this
statement:
"As far as I can understand the pattern of the strawman, [: u1 [:u2 [: u3
[: u4 ] , is the only expression in tacit J with the meaning of 4
monadic verbs ux in sequence. All other similar expressions have a more
complex meaning. Correct me if I'm wrong."
Here you came into the discussion. You should know what followed. So, we
discuss patterns to use when we have a sequence of normally different monadic
verbs. As simplest possible example of this pattern I write [: – [: – [: – [: –
] and use versions of this code to do measurements.
It seems you were proven slightly wrong. There is some redundancy in -@:-@:-@:-
compared to
[: – [: – [: – [: – ] .
/Erling
On 2016-08-07 00:11, robert therriault wrote:
Erling,
I seem to be missing something here, but it seems to me that the strawman is
that in the case of using - as the repeated monadic verb, we are creating
something that is identical to the verb ] and by choosing - as your repeated
verb you have created an example that would be most easily replaced by ]
(13 : '-(-(-(-(y))))' )
[: - [: - [: - -
(] -: (13 : '-(-(-(-(y))))' ))i. 100000000
1
timespacex '(13 :''-(-(-(-(y))))'' )i. 100000000'
2.82372 3.22123e9
timespacex '] i. 100000000'
0.413439 1.07374e9
If you chose +: as your repeated verb then that would be equivalent to 16 * ]
(13 : '+:(+:(+:(+:(y))))' )
[: +: [: +: [: +: +:
timespacex '(16 * ]) i. 100000000'
1.37372 2.14749e9
timespacex '13 : ''+:(+:(+:(+:(y))))'' i. 100000000'
4.04876 3.22123e9
There may be other choices that you have that are not equivalent to a simpler,
quicker solution.
Your original point from your post was that:
"People tend to avoid writing expressions like [: – [: – [: – [: – ] to execute a number
of monadic verbs in sequence, probably because it reveals that the notation is not good.
Instead they tend to write something like this -&-@- – ] and pretend that they use a cool
language."
It seems to me that using an example (-&-@- – ]) that would not be used by most
J programmers is the strawman. I think your argument is much stronger if you can
come up with verbs that cannot be expressed in equivalents that are clearer and
quicker.
By the way, I really appreciate the work that you have done in pushing these
boundaries.
Cheers, bob
On Aug 6, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Erling Hellenäs <[email protected]> wrote:
ts'(13 :''-(-(-(-(y))))'' )i. 100000000'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
