> 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.)
As I recall it you were asking if was acceptable to use explicit tools for this and that in order to produce a tacit version of INTEGRATE. I thought we already agreed that j903 tacit tools are weak for attacking tasks just above the lightweight class. Did we not? > (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 I do not recall having suggested changing the implementation (the chance of that occurring is next to nil; then again, we were led to believe that the old trains would never be back). Did I? Frankly, it does matter much to me one way or the other. I just know that J tacit adverbial/conjunctional programming is stronger and complete when genuine first-class citizenship is allowed for verbs, adverbs, and conjunctions. > Accepting low value for high cost is only very rarely the right move. > Even if there was a desire to go that route (a huge if) you might be quite right and probably it is already too late for J. BQN is heading that way, as I said time will tell if the pioneer of tacit programming has been left behind. On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 2:49 PM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
