There is also some kind of distinction between reading and
understanding? If you know the words and the grammar you can read the
sentence? If it is comprehensible depends on the author? If you can read
it and if it is comprehensible you as a reader has the responsibility to
understand it? The grammar and the words of languages are constantly
changing to make them easy to read? One question is if J is easy to read
when you know the words and the grammar? Another question is if J is
easy to write if you know the words and the grammar? If not, you could
possibly change the words or the grammar? /Erling
On 2014-07-14 01:19, Raul Miller wrote:
This is not unique to APL. I've seen similar issues with .Net
programs, with C programs, with Java programs with Ruby programs, with
CP/M programs, etc. etc.
For that matter, I've seen analogous issues in non-programming contexts.
In the context of APL, I've often found that finding representative
example data, and watching how it gets transformed, tends to help make
clear all sorts of issues. Ideally you want something complex enough
to be interesting but small enough that you can see all of it.
But it really doesn't matter what language I'm working with - I almost
routinely need to review the definitions and reference documentation.
Whenever I feel I don't understand something adequately it's time to
go back and review the basics. It's a good way of getting unstuck (but
not the only way - for example: performing experiments is also
important, and sometimes sketching out details on a piece of paper or
in a text editor or just talking with someone can be the right thing
to do).
FYI,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
