Thanks Ric, that's very helpful.
I have made some changes to your definition of my position.
* I think some form of tacit is essential and should be introduced
early on.
* I find tacit J to be clumsy, whereas, because explicit J is
elegant, it comes naturally.
* The clumsiness turns me off J.
* I believe that the structure of tacit J is overly complicated and
if a simpler version could be created it would be more accessible to
others and easier to use.
* I think that no one so far has answered my suggestions by looking at
what I am suggesting.
* I think that this results in both sides continually repeating
themselves.
* I think that in every example that has been provided, other than very
short expressions, I have been able to express the same tacit form
in a shorter, more elegant and more understandable form.
* I am willing to accept that there may be situations (in addition to
very short expressions) where the present tacit form is superior,
but no one has shown me one yet.
* I think it is best if I drop the issue for the present, and look at
something else - perhaps whether I can suggest a pragmatic
small collection of single commonly used mathematical symbols
that could replace some two character symbols on the screen
and in print - but only for those who want this.
You state:
"Sometimes I think you understand the tacit form and am impressed because I
know it took me a lot longer to do so, however at other times like this &
when you asked how something like (x * y) - (x +_ y) would be expressed as
tacit, I'm not so sure. Maybe you need to let it ferment for a while?"
I have a bad memory. I studied Mathematics at university because it was
the only subject where I didn't have to remember much. The elegance meant
that where I had forgotten, it was easy to go back and reconstruct. If I
have learned some understanding of tacit J, it was not from using the
language, it was from going back to first principles, looking for something
elegant and then asking why J was as it is. Once I understand why,
I can understand what.
I asked: ". . . how something like (x * y) - (x +_ y) would be
expressed as tacit . . " because I didn't remember it and couldn't use
first principles to figure it out.
You state:
"I think you need to be careful of stating as fact things that are by no
means obvious or even provable. You seem to make the jump that because J has
not taken the world by storm that the language itself is broken and that it
is the fault of the tacit form. I think you need to back up such a statement
with more evidence or at least a better argument."
You are right, I am wrong.
You state:
"You made the comment to me earlier in the thread that "We have to remember
that everyone is not the same as you are." I wonder if perhaps in the light
of the consistent comment that keeps appearing from many different people on
this thread (something along the lines of "It is a good idea for beginners
to start with explicit J and move on to tacit J at some point later")
whether you might think it is worthwhile taking a step back and reconsider
your position. Of course that doesn't stop you, after some consideration,
from deciding that you are right after all!!"
I am going to leave the issue for the moment. There is a point in such
debate where things get to a deadlock. The unconscious mind is a lot smarter
than the conscious mind - I hope no one wants to debate that ! This debate
is best left for a while. I am willing to reconsider my position if you are
willing to reconsider yours.
Don
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
