I want to clarify that I was not recommending to ignore the Dictionary. I was just trying to state that I learned J initially by reading an early 90's version of the Dictionary (and I mean the actual Dictionary, not the Introduction that is at the beginning of the document which I only read partially).
Someone else made once the argument that trying to learn the J language by reading (just) the J Dictionary is akin to trying to learn the English language (just) by reading an English dictionary. I consult the Dictionary infrequently but I can get away with it because almost always J does what I expected to do (even in wicked contexts that were not meant to be). This seems to be no accident: " I asked Ken, I think it may have been at the HOPL Conference, “What is the touchstone to making an elegant programming language?” He said, “The secret is, it has to do what you expect it to do.” If you stop and think about APL and if you stop and think about J and if you think about Ken’s work generally, it is that high degree of consistency which is the product of an exceptionally clean mind, and a fierce determination not to invent any new constructs, until you have to. " — Fred Brooks, A Celebration of Kenneth Iverson, 2004-11-30 On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Jimmy Gauvin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I think reading the dictionary is an essential part of learning .J. > > Why? Firstly, it is short compared to most dictionaries. > Secondly, its very terseness begets questions thus keeping your mind awake > and inducing experimentation at the console. > > > An historical note : J was conceived by language aficionados > > Starting at the end of page 4 onwards of the following document gives a > clue. > > https://donald-ec25e.firebaseapp.com/index_f/menu_f/j_f/kei_tribute.pdf > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am surprised how many people have not read the reference manual - > > > not just in the J community but among technical people in general. > > > > > > I really don't know what to make of this. > > > > This, to me, is akin to wondering why many people, particularly young > > children, can communicate orally fairly well in a language even when they > > have not studied its grammar. > > > > On the one hand, I write J tacitly the same way I speak, almost always > > without consciously thinking about grammar rules. On the other hand, I > > learned J, a long time ago, by reading the Dictionary (which is not a > > recommended way to learn it) and simultaneously experimenting with the > > interpreter (which is definitely recommended). > > > > I wish I had the time to read the Dictionary again in its entirety. > Yet, I > > still remember fondly the answer of a brilliant boss of mine when I > > suggested we should look at one particular reference manual: "Are you > > kidding? Manuals are the last resort!" > > > > :) > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Erling Hellenäs > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I doubt you can find reasonably accurate descriptions of this > > > functionality > > > > (these four helper programs) anywhere else. > > > > > > This suggests to me that you have not read > > > > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dictb.htm > > > nor > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicta.htm > > > > > > I am surprised how many people have not read the reference manual - > > > not just in the J community but among technical people in general. > > > > > > I really don't know what to make of this. > > > > > > -- > > > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
