> J is all about optimizing for the simple case, and
> for the most part, you will get a lot further
> focussing on simple cases (regular data) than
> trying to figure out how to squeeze the last little
> bit of complexity into your system.
>
> Most code, nowadays, is not written to solve
> problems, it's written to deal with complexities
> which slip into requirements when people aren't
> paying attention. One of J's strong points is that
> it makes those implicit complexities glaringly
> obvious.
Raul Miller's comments, above, point directly to one
of the most important qualities of J.
My sensibilites regarding software production have
been strongly shaped by Jean-Dominique Warnier and the
associated constellation of structured-design
advocates: K. Orr, D. Higgins, M. Jackson. Yes, most
of the material from this school counts as ancient.
The core message, however, is timeless:
Proper software design involves identifying the
simplest form of the required computation. Software
implementation should closely reflect such design
analysis.
Here the work of Iverson and that of Warnier intersect
naturally.
--
Tracy B. Harms
It is the central thesis of this book that the descriptive
and analytic power of an adequate programming language amply
repays the considerable effort required for its mastery.
Kenneth E. Iverson
A Programming Language, 1962
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
