Thanks Matthew,
Good suggestion. I have to really learn J and do it.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Brand" <[email protected]>
To: "Chat forum" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Jchat] Language S
Don,
You could knock up a program to convert S into some form of executable
J without first convincing others of its utility. What is the problem
with doing that? Along the way you might run into some problems
writing the program which I am sure people would be glad to help with
if asked specific J programming questions. That is different from
asking people to agree that S is better than J before S exists for
contrast and comparison.
You could then distribute the interpreter on the programming mailing
list, or a wiki page, or by other means.
You would then be able to promote your S interpreter, which would
actually exist in real life. For example, when someone posts something
on the programming forum, you could reply "well, using S it is much
easier... <example>". Or you could write a paper comparing how much
easier it is the do stuff in the actual S interpreter that exists than
in J and people can take it or leave it.
For now S is purely academic, J is practical. J exists and people are using
it.
My point is, don't give up. Just do it. Just write the S interpreter.
All the best,
Matthew.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Don Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Blank From the nature of the discussion in this forum, it is clear that
> this is a community that is academic in nature. J is providing an
> excellent
> service to its needs. There is nothing wrong with the J community making a
> decision that it should remain academic.
>
> Towards an alternative furure path:
>
> 1) I perceive an opportunity for J to help the rest of the community,
> particularly school teachers presenting Mathematics.
> 2) As an elder of the community, I have a responsibility to look towards
> the future for our children and youth.
> 3) I have made my case for making J more approachable and there is no
> point in repeating myself.
> 4) The first step in that process is the implementation of a facility
> that is simple to use and also fits the requirements for tacit j: "In a
> tacit definition the arguments are not named and do not appear explicitly
> in
> the definition. The arguments are referred to implicitly by the syntactic
> requirements of the definition."
> 5) This could have a different name. The more basic users could follow
> this route and the academic users could follow the tacit J path.
>
> I am obviously hoping that the J community will agree to let the use and
> purpose of J expand in this way. Obviously if I can't convince, I move on
> and try somewhere else. But I have no wish to destroy what exists.
>
> 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
