If you read the article, this sentence says it all: "I admit, the experiment was biased in that we were starting with existing code, mostly written in Fortran, and used a human subject who was not only familiar with Fortran but indeed embraced it."
I was encouraged by the assumption that the programs re-written in a modern version of that language are better, in part, because they are shorter. >From this he somehow draws the conclusion On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Randy MacDonald <[email protected]>wrote: > When I saw a statement like: > > > the "ideal" programming language was basically Fortran. > > I wondered how the problem of adding up a list of numbers was tackled. > Once you see +/ it is near impossible to un-see it, and that is just a > single example out of a vast space. > > I read further, and see use of a FORALL construct, (each, anyone?) which > _still_ takes 6 lines, and almost a dozen counter variables. This was > one line of APL, in. the. 70s. > > We are still ahead of our time. > > > On 6/25/2010 3:39 AM, PackRat wrote: > > Came across this article in another context and wondered how J might > > fare as such a language: > > > > http://www.codeproject.com/News.aspx?ntag=83734917359893874 > > > > > > Harvey > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Devon McCormick, CFA ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
