After considerable reflection: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > Raul wrote: >> If explicit code is simpler than tacit, why use tacit for that case? > > First, tacit is an end in itself. Constrained writing can be a source of > great beauty. Have you ever enjoyed a haiku?
This is a worthy goal. > Second, for an example of the practical benefits of the tacit style, you > might be interested in a recent post where I demonstrated that the syntax > of tacit code is subject to algebraic manipulation [1]. Such manipulation > allows us to reason about our programs, which is certainly a benefit, and > can lead to insights, and even simplifications. All this can be done on a > surface level, without necessarily having to "read" the program; by > implication, it means such simplifications can be automated. The sentences used in explicit definitions are subject to the same algebraic manipulations. Additionally, it's entirely possible to construct some explicit definitions tacitly. Your recent 'dont' can help, here. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
