Raul Miller wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Arthur speaks of 20 operators (prefix & infix) as all that K has and needs. >> I see more in the Vocabulary of J. >> >> 1) Can the vocabulary of J be reduced to a smaller number (basis)? Which >> ones are those? > > J has some operations which are notationally convenient but which > technically are not needed. For example -. could be replaced by 1- > > However: > >> 2) How would the expressiveness in J and K compare? > > K is more expressive in the context of relational tables (for example), > where J is more expressive in the context of higher ranked arrays > (for example). [This just scratches the surface of their differences > and is not meant to be an adequate comparison of the languages.] > >> 3) Is it that K needs less because the usage scope is well defined? > > I believe yes, at least in part.
Also, K's symbols are more overloaded than J's, in that in K, the operation performed by a symbol depends on the type and rank of the argument. In the article, Arthur refers to 20 symbols, but earlier to 50 operations performed by those symbols. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
