You mistake my intent. My purpose here is not to "justify why I refuse to play the full tacit game", it's:
(A) to point out significant issues with some of your suggestions about the character of the mixed tacit + explicit game. For example: you had suggested that mixed tacit + explicit would mean using tacit for lightweight tasks. That suggestion seems to me to be misleading. (Though it's necessarily accurate when all tasks are lightweight.) (B) The discussion has also been about changing the language implementation. That's *always* something to be cautious about. This is not an unnecessary task -- it's a vital task for the language to remain viable as a language. Language changes tend to make incomprehensible older works which used the language, and that's a high cost. Accepting low value for high cost is only very rarely the right move. This does not necessarily mean that I have always been right about what I said here. But if you are going to talk about my motivations, it seems to me that I ought to be able to contribute to at least that part of the conversation. Thanks, -- Raul On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 2:09 PM Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Am I making sense to you? > > Playing the full tacit game is not for everybody. You do not need to > justify, with mostly old arguments, why you refuse to play the game. Most > j fans do not play it and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as > far as I am concerned. > > :) > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:25 PM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:09 PM Jose Mario Quintana > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > My stance here is that *any* tool set necessarily is limited (aka > > > > "weak") outside of a limited range of targets. For example: > > > > ... > > > > > > Yes, I have known for many years that you feel very constricted when you > > > are asked to use only tacit tools when entertaining a nontrivial > > > programming exercise. There is really no need for you to emphasize it. > > > > But there is when we are discussing the topic and my reasons for that > > stance are relevant to the current discussion. > > > > > > But you're probably also not tracking orbital debris. > > > > > > Are you tracking orbital debris with explicit J? > > > > No more than I am chopping down trees with explicit J. Well, maybe > > slightly more -- but only in toy problems. > > > > > > > I would accept that as a tacit admission that the j903 tacit tools > are > > > > > weak. > > > > > > > > Sure, and I also think that that's what makes them desirable. > > > > > > So, we agree! (That j903 tacit tools are weak.) > > > > And that's not necessarily a bad thing: > > > > The point I have been trying to express here is that "weak for a task > > that the tools were not designed for" is a necessary characteristic of > > any useful tool set. > > > > Boxed verbs come with costs: Documentation costs, implementation > > costs, maintenance costs (in the J implementation), debugging costs > > (in code which did not intend to use the feature but erroneously used > > it), opportunity costs (time that could have been spent on other > > things). To make a decent decision here one has to be aware of both > > the value and the costs of that decision (and someone has to step up > > to cover those costs). > > > > I understand that you have been supporting an implementation with > > boxed verbs, so you seem motivated there. But "tacit is weak" does not > > adequately express the costs vs the benefits of this approach, > > > > Am I making sense to you? > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Raul > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
