Hi Matthew,
I will take Skip Cave's advice. I tend to work at a solution by
following it down all of the forks and branches. One of two things happen. I
find something that doesn't fit the solution I want and I abandon the idea
or I don't find one. I have been disappointed many times to find I was wrong
but had no trouble abandoning a bad idea.
I have had a lot of very experienced J programmers oppose my ideas with
very good arguments. This has been extremely helpful. So I have no objection
to your opposition. I have found it very helpful. Thank you.
However, you must realize that so far no one has convinced me I am
wrong. I actually feel more confident that I am right than when I started
this debate.
I am not concerned that you disagree with me so much today. What matters
is what you think 6 months from now.
Thanks,
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Brand" <[email protected]>
To: "Chat forum" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Jchat] Language S
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
