I totally agree. When the J dictionary and user guides were written the medium was paper books. Now they are online as HTML files. Now it would be easy to add links connecting to examples for people wanting more detail and explanation. But the additional detail would not be in the way for people not needing the additional information. Something that was not practical to do when the medium was paper.
It would be easy to make existing words in the dictionary links where needed. The original wording, which Ken went to a lot of trouble writing, could be left intact. On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > I take pleasure in trying to understand and defend J formally, from the > DoJ. > > So personally I would like the DoJ to be more explicit and prescriptive in > this and other cases; ideally it would be possible to reproduce the current > implementation of J using nothing more than the text of the Dictionary. > Having said that, I recognize that ambiguity is inevitable and to try to > eliminate it is just chasing the horizon*. > > As we've discussed in the past, there will always be some level of > ambiguity > in any specification (check WP on the Munchhausen trilemma). Here's a > relevant quote from the person with the most experience interpreting the > DoJ > and implementing the language: > > I don't know that a person who doesn't know APL or > J can implement J from the J dictionary. My guess > is that the resulting implementation can look > quite different. (It may not even be an > interactive system, for example.) > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2010-January/017795.html > > So, I agree with Boyko that the definition of / in particular is wanting, > and that primitives in general should be comprehensive without being > repetitive of previously-defined concepts, and I agree with Raul that in > general it is difficult to decide where to draw the line on what should be > specified and what inferred from elsewhere, because it is not possible to > specify everything. I also agree that examples and experimentation > (working > through examples by oneself) illuminate and clarify definitions, and aren't > just desirable but necessary for definitions. > > Here's another quote I really like, this time from our resident > professional > mathematician, John Randall: > > As to learning mathematics, I believe that proofs are a post hoc > formalization, and that almost all mathematics proceeds from > examples. Indeed, theorems without concrete examples are dismissed > as > "general nonsense". > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007-July/007298.html > > -Dan > > * Though that does not mean that we should ignore all ambiguities; for > example, if we come to an agreement that / is underspecified, we should > treat that as a bug, and fix it. The cost is low enough. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
