I do not even disagree with him. He might just blogged something (j, chinese ime) that he has no practical experience.
terse refer to token not character. Cobol programs written in his purposed style will not become terse either. He also under-estimated the difficulty to use chinese ime. Fwiw I can only type about 4 or 5 chinese characters per minute. Unlike japanese and korean, chinese is not phonetic, and it is equally difficult to break a character down into radicals. On Fri, 07 Nov 2008, Tracy Harms wrote: > "Deep down in their hearts, programmers want to read and write terse > code." So begins Gavin Grover in a blog he posted in June. In short > order, though, he qualifies that this is not true enough to amplify > the popularity of J. Why not? He never really develops much of a > theory, there, but it seems to boil down to it being possible to have > too much of a good thing. > > http://gavingrover.blogspot.com/2008/06/future-of-programming-chinese.html > > His basic idea here strikes me as very engaging, and perhaps sound. > If it is sound, I'm confident that the benefit is higher for the > Iverson language family than for any other languages, because here the > benefits of reducing names to pure symbols are maximized. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm -- regards, ==================================================== GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24 gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
