On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > Raul wrote (in the original thread): >> Like this? >> >> cam=:2 :0 >> u 5!:1<'v’ >> ) >> >> Am=:1 :0 >> u cam >> ) > > Well … > > I wrote: > >> - It is tacit > > Not having it tacit defeats the purpose of the exercise: extending our tacit > adverbial programming toolkit, so more J programs can be expressed more > easily in F^4, or Fully Fixed Functional Form.
Ok, but are there any other issues? > Now, that’s not a sport everyone enjoys, but it is the one we are playing. Yeah... personally, I consider explicit code to be a subset of tacit code. More specifically, when the explicit code is orders of magnitude more compact and simpler than any alternative "tacit" code, I'm happy to think of the few characters involved as being just some opaque data to be ignored. More generally, I despise specifications which are not about what is to be accomplished but instead are about how to accomplish them (especially since, in my experience, such specifications generally result in code bloat and/or other painful inefficiencies). I can recognize some value as "learning exercises" but since they at the same time teach an approach which leads to bad ends I consider the value of those lessons to be more about the validity of exploration than about the validity of the material itself. But, as you said, everyone has their own preferences. Still, even if you do not like the appearance of the code I offered, perhaps you could at least tell me if there is something wrong with what it does? Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
