I've been finding the discussion of J's symbols very discouraging and sad, and to me it seemed to be going off in various unhelpful directions. Of course this depends on who you want to help.
But Skip Cave has raised the issue that I didn't feel like butting in with. He wrote "This discussion also helped remind me of another issue that may be fueling some of the current discussions - J's target audience." Long ago I wrote an article entitled "Is APL a programming language?" (see tinyurl.com/CJ78APLq) with the answer "No" in which I advocated that APL deserved a very wide usage and should be freed from programmers. The argument is just as applicable to J. Unfortunately, APL was sequestered by and developed for programmers. J has struck me as going the same way. That's why I proposed a device called the formulator (see eprints.utas.edu.au/9474 followed by archive.vector.org.uk/art10500510) based largely on J. APL/J (or rather their simplification) deserves general usage and could be the basis for a revival and extension of public numeracy. But this will not be achieved by a complex extension and elaboration of APL/J that is accessible only to programmers and their ilk, and that is designed to write programs in rather than to promote general calculation. When I suggested using colouring as an option under user control to bring the . and : suffixed symbols down to a single character, this was to simplify the J symbol set for a general readership. Simplification is very important for general acceptance, though of course it contradicts the basic principles of IT technologists (whence the tongue in Ian Clark's cheek?). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
