I agree with Dan about wanting to avoid C as much as possible but I may have to deal with it more at work anyway, so I wouldn't mind delving into the J source at some point though an overview as Marshall suggested would be most welcome.
I assume no one has compiled it in MS Visual Studio yet? On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Marshall Lochbaum <mwlochb...@gmail.com>wrote: > I would really like to become maintainer for the J source. However, I > don't have the time to devote to this task right now. It's on my list of > programming projects I want to do (somewhere above write my own OS and > write my own text editor, I suppose). Maybe some weekend I will look at > the code and try to sort out what the errors in our current tests mean. > > There's a lot that can be added to J: modern features like parallelism > and GPU processing would improve the language a lot without complicating > it. Numerous bugs have shown up in the forums that could be fixed. I > think I am the only one that has expressed immediate interest in deep > changes like these, but I find it hard to beleive that there aren't > other people who would help. It would be really useful to have a guide > to how the J source works: something that explains the data structures > and control flow, and how to do something like add a builtin or add a > case to ^:_1 . If we have the appropriate documentation, I can almost > certainly "sit at the top of the pull tree" and check that changes to > the code work or offer help to people with questions about the source. > > This discussion belongs in Source, if anyone is going to continue it. > > Marshall > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 02:49:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Dan Bron <j...@bron.us> wrote: > > > Or maybe there is, now, a magical one-click build for J? > > > > Not yet. I'd like to arrange for some kind of one, at least for the > > interpreter core - currently I'm trying to remember how to test > > compiled results, and what likely issues are for tests that typically > > fail. > > > > > PS: When are we going to have a serious discussion about making an > curated, > > > promoted and official open-source version of J? I think, for this to > work, > > > it has to be independent of the JSoftware version: we cannot keep the > burden > > > on them. That means one of us needs to sit at the top of the pull > tree. > > > > I'm not ready to think about this kind of issue. Building versions of > > the interpeter which pass all the tests (or until we can show that the > > tests themselves need fixing) has much higher priority, from my point > > of view. > > > > That said, I see nothing wrong with the JSoftware version, other than > > the fact that I am struggling to build instances that work properly. > > > > -- > > Raul > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
