Paul should have started this thread on chat. Please move future
discussion on this to chat.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donna Ydreos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Re: J as a functional programming language
I think the statement that APL and J are not programming languages is
simply wrong.
There are other things that may only be executable notation but APL
and J are not only executable notation, they are sufficient for
programming anything computable (by the programmer). If you do not
know how to program something however, you won't be able to program it
in any language.
Donna
From: "John Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: General forum <[email protected]>
To: "General forum" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Re: J as a functional programming language
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 07:36:53 -0400 (EDT)
Mark D. Niemiec wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> J, like APL, are not programming languages, they are executable
>> notations.
>
> Back at school, we had a particular metric we used to distinguish
> those things that could be called programming languages:
> If you could write Towers of Hanoi in it, it was a programming
> language.
> Using this metric, J qualifies.
>
Can anyone explain to me in simple terms what is meant by "executable
notation" versus "programming language"? I have never understood the
distinction, but some obviously consider it important, if not crucial.
Thanks.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
