Don, I am sorry to have been a source of negative energy in my responses but it was difficult to be positive about this topic because I do disagree with you. I do respect your efforts and enthusiasm though and wish you luck with the project.
Skip Cave's suggestion seems like a very good way to proceed. Best regards, Matthew. On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Don Watson <[email protected]> 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
