On that side, I would say I am using J on and off since 1990 and I never reached the level of understanding of J that many of the very good J users on this forum have.
My areas of work have been among the simplest one can think of as in file transformation/mapping data cleansing etc. Mostly database oriented and not sophisticated. The fact that J can satisfy simplistic/naive users like me and subject areas experts in many scientific fields is a very strong indication of is very general and precise nature. Even if I did not know Ken profoundly I did have the honor to meet him a few times and I believe he was really interested of making a notation that would address the needs of people to clearly express their needs as well as increase their understanding which is why he was so interested in bringing J in school rooms. (People who knew him better could clarify that point...) The fact that the number of "primitives" to address such a broad range of needs has increased from a few in APL to a lot more in J and a lot more in the future is no surprise and the details of syntax does show that a similar choice as human languages was to be made. Token based or word/cartouche based as illustrated by Donald B. McIntyre in: "Language as an intellectual tool: from hieroglyphics to APL" ? The choice has been made and it works. We could have a token based equivalent and see where it leads but we already can see what it did in the human language area. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of BobGraf Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Jchat] Subject: Re: J readability ... I think that the issue with "J Readibility" may lie more in the area of "subject comprehensibility". ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
