@AndrewD: I've been using J casually for about 2 years, and consider myself
an "intermediate beginner". I also use Python, and my impression is that
Python makes it easy to see what the author *wanted* the program to do, but
J makes it easier to see what the program *actually does*.
However, one frustration I still have is regarding explicit definitions.
IMO they should be replaced with something more like what the K language
provides, namely first-class, lexically-scoped functions:
add: {x+y}
scan: {x\y}
scan [add; 2 3 4]
2 5 9
Perhaps J's syntax could be extended someday, to recognize this type of
function in an explicit definition, for example:
add =: dyad def 'x+y'
scan =: HOF def 'x\y' NB. in this scheme, HOF stands for 'higher-order
function' and tells interpreter to not evaluate x or y until both arguments
are bound
add scan 2 3 4
2 5 9
There are a few other things I'd like J to take from K, but that's the big
one.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:16 AM, chris burke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear All
>
> My attempt to move this thread over to programming failed, but please note
> for future use that discussions like this on the language are much better
> addressed to the programming forum. Not least, they will then reach all J
> forum readers, not just those subscribed to general. See http://code.
> jsoftware.com/wiki/System/Forums .
>
> Thanks.
>
> Chris
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
