Thanks, Yuvaraj. I reckon your 2¢ is worth at least 2 bitcoins! :-D

December 2017! That's really timely.
I recall back in the 80s a leading commentator grousing that C++ was being
used for mission-critical applications before the ANSI standard had been
fully worked out. Then I watched as machine "words" grew longer and longer,
and int had variants like a sow had piglets.

And spacecraft plowed into Mars. (In 1972 the Russians hurled literally
tons of hardware at the planet.)

And as for C%2B%2B…!! You daren't name a language these days and expect
even the name to stay still. And we all felt ASCII was safe from all that:
dear old solid "+".

> Have you considered looking into C++ Glossary … ?

Yes, I had, but every language offers its own glossary. Sometimes (like J)
more than one.
I had hoped to find a "shared" glossary, hallmarked by God – or, failing
that, the genuinely accredited proxy (…one or the other).
But every computer language begetter takes it for granted his language is
destined to be the only one on earth.

I'm apt to go back to my original plan: write separate "first-contact"
treatments for each leading language.
Henry had it right [Rich, H., *J for C Programmers*, 2004, 2007-10-03]
But mine would follow matched patterns, except for using the reader's

Thus, the Python book on leaves of gold states (somewhere): "there's only
one way of doing it."
The corresponding J para would say: "There's always one more way of doing

That's a lot of gold I'll need. Thank God J is terse.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir <> wrote:

> Hi Ian,
> Have you considered looking into C++ Glossary
> ? I enjoyed "The Annotated C++
> Reference Manual" when I was learning C++ for the first time.
> C++ is an established ISO standard -  latest being granted in December 2017
> as *ISO/IEC 14882
> <>:2017* (informally
> known as C++17 <>) [1]
> My 2c,
> Yuvaraj
> [1]
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:28 AM, Ian Clark <> wrote:
> > It's absurdly difficult to write a good "first-contact" text for J
> without
> > reference to a single accepted source of definitions like: platform,
> > program, app, script, variable, constant, function, array, string,
> > character, number …
> >
> > Is there an ISO standard for common programmer terms (in English)?
> >
> > If the answer is: legion (…my first impression) – then is there one that
> > stands out for you?
> >
> > I have an operational need for a weblink to a good clear published free
> > authoritative text. To avoid cluttering this thread, please don't offer
> > your own definitions of the above terms here (although of course I'd be
> > frightfully interested to hear them one day.)
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > For information about J forums see
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see
For information about J forums see

Reply via email to