Hi all !
Yes, maybe we should all be concerned about writing readable code
instead of the shortest and most cryptic code? Maybe we should also
write writeable code? Find a way to write that allows us to get the
expressions right the first time?
J is more of a notation than a language? The value of a notation is
determined by clarity, but also readability? Maybe readability and
writeability, in the sense I explained above, should get higher priority
as design goals for our future J?
Cheers,
Erling Hellenäs
On 2014-07-12 07:40, Raul Miller wrote:
I would not generalize to higher rank arrays without a model of why I'd be
using them.
In other words, v=: {"_1 |:~&0 2 is probably good enough.
There are some interesting contradictions here - while one needs to be
comfortable thinking mathematically to get decent performance out of a
system, usually what we are building is a mix of instant and delayed
gratification and we usually assume our audience has no direct interest in
the math we are performing (indirect interest, yes - sometimes).
Often I think we go overboard, and we should throw back in some exposure to
some of the more robust concepts (especially for the kids, so they have
something interesting to play with). But professional adults tend to be
under a lot of time pressure, and as a result their needs often seem to be
a mix of the very basic and the childish.
Meanwhile, it seems like anything worthwhile takes time and effort.
Anyways, professional software design often centers around use cases and
similar models which are aimed at extracting the important concepts about
what people need to get done and how they want to work. And that kind of
information is what you need if you are going to properly generalize
application code.
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
