Yes. Arthur is definitely a better C programmer than I am, and he has also been focussing on the specific needs of his audience (wall street).
But that focus was my point. -- Raul On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Greg Borota <[email protected]> wrote: > I am too much of a beginner in APL world to have an authoritative say. But > my feeling is that some of the K quirks are driven more by actual > implementation/optimization constraints than academic thought. Also K keeps > more of the C feel (and Lisp to a lesser extent). Arthur is an incredibly > gifted C programmer as well. > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Greg Borota <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 3) I am thinking Arthur Whitney's K might help to some extend define a >> more >> > reduced J core. J Dictionary does defines a J core, but maybe things >> could >> > be reduced some more to get one going quicker. See >> > http://kparc.com/document/k.txt >> >> That's an interesting idea, but would take some serious thought. >> >> K is a great environment, but some of the decisions are dubious. >> >> For example, why does K use & for and instead of *? >> >> In the context of J, we are concerned about identity operations (or, >> more generally: concepts of groups and semigroups, including monoids), >> and: >> >> >./'' >> __ >> */'' >> 1 >> *./'' >> 1 >> >> Note also that J's *&.-. is a linear (Bayesian) implementation of >> logical OR. Does that make it worth including in "minimal J"? >> >> Anyways... thought needed... >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
