Thanks Don - a lot of interesting history there! > From: Don Watson > > Your second question, Bill, is the $64,000 question. I am only > thinking presently of the issue of persuading the J community > that there is something worth doing. > ... > J is aimed at a sophisticated community. I can see that from the > documentation and the responses given in this debate. In the 1960s APL > was able to reach everyone. I am just asking myself what the barriers > are to J reaching eveyone.
A very good question! I'm sure there are a lot of theories. > One barrier is tacit programming and I have > been trying to address that one. You see tacit programming as a barrier to the acceptance of J. I never saw it that way, even before I understood it or really appreciated why it was useful. I was very happy with explicit J. For me tacit J can be viewed as something to move on to as and when you're ready and see the need. My advice would be not to confuse your target audience with tacit to start with (whether it is J's version of tacit or yours). As I see it the only thing stopping you from going down that route at the moment is that you don't like the syntax of: myverb=: verb def '(x + y) - (x * y)' I think you'll have much less resistance to the above than to this below: myverb=: (([) + (])) - ([) * NB. I think this is the equivalent in your tacit notation?!? > A second barrier is the two character symbols. While it doesn't take > that long to get used to them, it's the first view of the house > that sells it. If you can't get them in through the front door, they > will never know what a beautiful dining room the house has. I have > partially addressed that one, but I will return to it. I think this may have some merit. But I think it's main benefit would be, as you say, as a nice facade that doesn't put first-time viewers off. I think that in reality once they got through the front door and started walking around, they'd pretty quickly gravitate towards the current symbol set (unless, like some users, they're not allowed to!). > Another set of documentation is needed. I do have qualifications and > experience in both Mathematics and Computer Science, but I have a > struggle with the notes behind the vocabulary. That won't attract > a 5th grade school teacher. In my view this is the place where there is the most bang for buck to be had. As I understand it the Dictionary/Vocabulary serve firstly as a specification for the J language rather than as a document for introducing newcomers to the language. As such there are good reasons for keeping it concise and precise. However I totally agree with you that it won't attract school teachers! I also totally agree that it would be great to have a separate document that was be more appropriate for that purpose. I think it would also be nice (continuing with the house selling metaphor) to give all the documentation a new coat of paint in a more up-to-date colour. In my opinion it currently looks dated, both in terms of visual appearance and underlying structure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
