Suggest moving this conversation to Chat. It seems that you have some mutually exclusive requirements. Wanting characters outside of standard ASCII is what plagued APL. No way to display and hard to enter. The display is not a problem any more but entry still is. And you might be surprised how quickly children pick up the double character primitives in J.
But it's not really difficult to intercept J input to handle say UTF-8 characters entered and convert what is displayed to UTF-8 to display special symbols instead of the J primitives. But now you have something that is not standard. As far as easy to understand and read. Limit the primitives that the children use to those they are already familiar with. Then you are only having to deal with the new concept for them of non-scalar data. They can learn additional primitives as their experience grows. "Easy" is a vague term. Throw standard mathematical notation (if there is such a thing) at an elementary school student and I don't think he would find it easy to read. I don't see where J needs to be accepted as a standard for classroom use. OK, so maybe J goes away some time. I certainly hope not! But think in arrays as J encourages is applicable to other languages, even though they may be scalar languages. People who know APL and J often find solutions to problems missed by people who only know scalar programming languages. One cannot get by as a computer professional knowing only one language. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Don Watson <[email protected]> wrote: > Our university acquired its first APL system in 1968 – after I heard Ken > Iverson give a seminar on "The Role of Computers in Teaching". In those days > software was free from computer manufacturers. Iverson promoted APL > vigorously as an aid in the teaching of Mathematics and its applications - > and it was so easy to teach - students from many disciples used it for their > classes > > > > I have been retired for 13 years, and haven't used APL or anything like it > for 25 years. I recently started providing enrichment to a gifted 10 year > old and sought an APL system. I ended up with a J system instead because APL > systems appeared to be: > > > > · Not available under Windows, or > > · Not well supported, or > > · Expensive, and > > a.. Divergent from each other, > b.. With keyboards that cannot serve regular ASCII purposes. > > Although APL systems today are used commercially for manipulating data, it > is my impression that fewer students use APL (or J) in their courses than 40 > years ago. There certainly has not been the expansion in teaching use that > there should have been. This is a shame. Today's smaller pool of student > learners surely also reduces the opportunities for commercial sales of APL > and J systems. > > > > I am sure that experienced J programmers are used to the language and have > no problems with it; however, J is not easy for (say) a 10 year old public > school student, a 15 year old high school student or a geography major. J > may be as elegant in its structure as the original APL, but APL had those > symbols that were one character instead of two and expressed meaning through > their design. > > > > Can J be turned into be a revised system that better meets the needs of the > teaching community as well as the needs of the commercial community? Such a > J system would need to fit all of the following criteria: > > > > 1. Acceptable as a standard. > > 2. Free for teaching purposes. > > 3. Powerful. > > 4. Well supported. > > 5. Able to use the same keyboard as regular ASCII applications. > > 6. Available on PCs and Macs. > > 7. With teaching additions: > > a. As easy to read and learn as possible. > > b. Transparent to current J users. > > c. Retaining the ability to use the same keyboard as regular ASCII > applications. > > d. Easy to add to the J system. > > > > These criteria can be met very easily: > > > > Criterion 1 J is a good standard on which to build a new teaching system, > because it has the following advantages: > > > > · J fits Criteria 2 through 6. > > · Of the successors to the original APL, only J had Iverson's > approval. The alternative, designing changes by committee, according to > commercial interests or by adversarial competition is unlikely to be in the > best interest of the teaching community. > > > > Criterion 7a An addition can be made to the J system to make it more > suitable for teaching, by the replacement of two character symbols on the > screen with single symbols designed to have meaning related to their > function. > > > > Criterion 7b The revised J system could have a "J" mode identical to the > present system and (say) an "A" mode for teaching. The "A" mode might also > be preferred by converts from current APL systems. > > > > Criterion 7c The same keyboard could be used for ASCII applications if the > revised system: > > > > · Required exactly the same keystrokes in the "A" mode as in the "J" > mode. > > · Placed all three related symbols on the same key (e.g., = with new > symbols replacing =. and =:). > > · Had a convention in their positioning as to which one came from one > keystroke, which from adding "." And which from adding ":". > > > > Criterion 7d As a result, the system changes in J would be very easy to > make - the only change in the "A" mode would need to be in looking in a two > character table to find the single symbol replacement and presenting it on > the screen (and in printing). > > > > Since such a change would be so easy to implement, someone must have > already produced such a system. Could you please own up? I'd like a copy. > > > > Don Watson > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
