Don,
It would seem that you are convinced that your tacit parsing rules are
both simpler and easier to remember than J's current tacit rules. If
this is true, then it should be fairly easy to prove it. J has an
extensive set of phrases, mostly tacit, that cover a wide range of
useful data operations. These are all listed in J's Phrasebook -
http://www.jsoftware.com/help/phrases/contents.htm
If your tacit parsing rules are truly more efficient, then you should be
able to implement a large portion of the phrases in the phrasebook in a
simpler manner, using the S syntax. You should be able to demonstrate
how these updated phrases could be more easily understood and are more
efficient written in S. I would suggest that you pick a random selection
of 10-15 phrases from the phrasebook, perhaps ones with an abundance of
the symbols you feel are unnecessary, both monadic and dyadic, and show
how they can be simplified using your proposed syntax. This would
probably be a more effective way to prove your points..
Take, for example, phrase d8 under Ranking and Clasification phrases in
the phrasebook:
d8=: <:@[ <.[ <....@d7 m...@] NB. Classify y into x equal intervals.
Here's the tacit phrase expanded fully, with arguments and the result:
(y = i. 21 x = 3)
3 (<:@[ <.[ <.@(] * [ % [: >./ ]) (- <./)@]) i. 21
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
How would S simplify this tacit expression?
Since you are proposing an alternate syntax, it is incumbent upon you to
prove your statements of simplicity and efficiency. It isn't up to the
The J community to make your arguments for you. I'm sure that the J
community will be supportive, if your ideas have merit. It is just that
you will have to demonstrate that merit yourself, in practical
situations like the phrasebook, before they will come around. It will
take many examples of S superiority in common situations, and an
inability for the J community to produce equivalent counterexamples, to
make a convincing case for S.
Skip Cave
<<<>>>
Don Watson wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
