Erling Hellenäs, I don't doubt you like simplified programs where redundancies or other unnecessary things have been removed. So do I.
What I don't know how to do is use adverbs or conjunctions as padding. I also don't understand what you have in mind when you say they are sometimes used as padding. -- T On Jul 14, 2014 8:01 PM, "Erling Hellenäs" <[email protected]> wrote: > I very much appreciate these operators when they are needed. When only > used as padding they seem like a huge complication both for readability and > writeability. /Erling > > On 2014-07-15 01:03, Tracy Harms wrote: > >> Erling Hellenäs, >> >> It doesn't take much to get a set of language features that make all other >> language features technically unnecessary or redundant. This comes with >> computational universality, as sketched here: >> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing-complete >> >> What makes it attractive to see verb trains as fundamental is the way they >> have been tied to lexical adjacency. This is among the most noteworthy >> aspects of the design of J as a language. Verb trains are incredibly easy >> to create because they rely mainly on adjacency (and the absence of nouns >> in the role of arguments to verbs, which also involves adjacency rules.) >> >> Where do we get this idea that verb trains are "fundamental" while >> modifiers (a.k.a. operators, if we follow Heaviside) are ancillary? What >> most accommodates that notion is Cap, which is one of relatively few >> irregularities in a language that (in part) came out of an effort to >> rationalize, i.e. remove inconsistencies. With Cap set aside the role of >> modifiers becomes clear, to my view. I advise contemplating the qualities >> of tacit J without Cap, for awhile. >> >> -- >> Tracy Harms >> On Jul 13, 2014 11:33 AM, "Erling Hellenäs" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> It is not possible to reformulate the verb trains with caps so that most >>> of the &'s and @'s are no longer needed? So that it is shown they had no >>> actual function? /Erling >>> >>> On 2014-07-13 17:20, Tracy Harms wrote: >>> >>> On Jul 13, 2014 6:41 AM, "Erling Hellenäs" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Most of the &'s and @'s are written not because they are needed >>>>> as operators, but are used only as padding, to avoid the othervise >>>>> automatic creation of hooks and forks? >>>>> >>>>> No. It seems inaccurate to call that "padding." They apply at a >>>> meta-level. >>>> They do not interfere with the formation of verb trains, they contribute >>>> to >>>> the formation of verb trains. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> T >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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 >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
