On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Boyko Bantchev <boyk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Traditional algebraic notation is very good for what it has been > designed, and much easier to learn for kids than parsing J, let alone > understanding the underlying computational model.
To my knowledge, no studies have been done to investigate this issue. And, if we constrain our use of J to only those operations which have equivalents in traditional algebraic notation, I am dubious of the conclusion --- it conflicts with my experience. [That said, if you make a deliberate attempt to make one or the other notation confusing, you might succeed.] That said, there's an issue here involving available materials, and that is where traditional algebraic notation shines. > Consider what a juxtaposition of two tokens within an expression could > mean: > > – (part of the) contents of an array; > – application of a monadic verb; > – application (in the opposite direction!) of an adverb; > – (partial) application of a conjunction (producing an adverb); > – a train of two adverbs; > – part of an application of a dyadic verb; > – part of an application of a conjunction; > – part of a train of three verbs; > – (implicit) composition of verbs; > – a hook. > > I may be missing some but there are 10 (!) variants so far – all this > of nothing more than the innocent sequence of two. The tip of the > iceberg. How are kids expected to tackle the rest of it? Note that traditional algebraic notation has analogous issues. But both of these pale to insignificance when compared to the number of issues of this sort represented by the english language. So I feel this enumeration of partial contexts is a red herring. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
