I agree - by forgoing use of the interpreter, it's like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. If this were an intra-language competition, we would be fair and let others use their interpreter too. :)
In any case, the issue of how cryptic a language appears is usually raised by people unfamiliar with it, not with native speakers. Something like COBOL or even Java written using verbose names gives one the impression of understanding even if this is mistaken. What I find most odd is the common willingness to make blanket pronouncements about the absolute readability of a language by people who don't know it. On 4/4/08, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Dan Bron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (... I didn't cheat and ask the interpreter ;) > > Note that I consider the interpeter a useful element of J's readability. > > Its use can be compared to using spell checkers or grammar checkers > with natural language documents. (It can be quite helpful but > does not do the whole job.) > > It's only "cheating" when its use hinders understanding, > at least in my opinion. > > -- > > Raul > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
