No problem Richard, The quote I used was actually from Jon on his blog post, so I imagine he is already aware. ;)
If you wish to pursue the topic of language comparison between WL and J, it would probably be best to move over to the Chat forum <[email protected]> :) Cheers, bob On 2013-09-13, at 11:57 AM, Richard Gaylord wrote: > thanks. i expected that to be the case > > (of course, there's the readability issue which is important to people who > are scientists and engineers rather than coders - i often write nested > anonymous (pure) function calls in WL myself and nobody can figure out > what's going on except by seeing the result of applying it - i'm a MAJOR > fan of 'write only' code although sometimes i can't even figure out what > i've written without running the code). > > i'll pass your results on to Jon and to stephen. > > btw - i hope nobody in the J programming group objects to these exchanges. > i think that J and WL are the only languages worth anything (i abhor Do > loops - i want to calculate what i want to calculate and not have to spend > time getting a dumb computer to understand what it needs to do in terms it > can understand - i had enough of that with teaching graduate students > for 30 years) and there's a lot of commonality between the two except that > J and APL and K and Q seem to be oriented primarily towards very fast > financial analysis while WL is the language for computing in science in > general). i love them both and am definitely not trying to pit one against > the other. > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:14 PM, bob therriault <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Richard, >> >> When I read through the background of the link, I found that a comparison >> with J was done and the programmer, Jon McLoone, posted the results as a >> response to a comment: >> >> " I quickly ran the code on J and got ratios of lines:0.5, characters: >> 0.74, tokens:0.5, over 432 comparisons i.e. J is about half the length of >> Mathematica code." >> >> Posted by Jon McLoone November 14, 2012 at 3:04 pm >> http://blog.wolfram.com/2012/11/14/code-length-measured-in-14-languages/ >> >> Cheers, bob >> >> On 2013-09-13, at 10:55 AM, Richard Gaylord wrote: >> >>> btw - i'm glad we're doing this since Wolfram people did a comparision of >>> program conciseness in various languages but left out J and APL for some >>> reason. >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > > > > -- > > *"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." - > Benjamin Franklin* > > > *"I think that the very notion that equations are a good approach to > describing the natural world is a little bizarre." > - Stephen Wolfram* > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
