Dan tried to remind you what the specifications were, > I wrote: > >> - It is tacit
but apparently you were in another state of mind (see, http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015-December/043676.html), Yeah... personally, I consider explicit code to be a subset of tacit code. As you said earlier in this thread "But of course, if you mean tacit in some different sense, the rules change." Regarding performance, just for the record, it is not the case that all explicit adverbs dominate tacit counterparts running on all interpreters (and on all computer devices). At any rate, I am still curious: "Do you have an example where adverbial (or conjunctional) performance might be critical?" The question is not rhetorical; I would like to know about such useful explicit adverbs (or conjunctions) which do not have practical tacit alternatives and put a remedy (if necessary) or at least be aware of them. On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, yeah, I forgot about that. > > I probably overlooked that part of the spec, originally, or didn't > care about it (as I am happy to consider the definition to be an > opaque string if the resulting expression is significantly better than > the alternative). > > That said, I seem to remember that at the time I took the stance that > I was still interested in whether that example gave the kinds of > results he was looking for, even if it was not suitable as a > competitive entry. > > -- > Raul > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan's exercise description was performance-wise mute but quite clear > about > > tacitness (see, > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015-December/043661.html > ) > > So, it seems to me, the rumblings were justified after all. > > > > Regarding the lack performance of tacit adverbs (or conjunctions), I do > not > > recall ever having a need for speed (I could always launch, for > instance, a > > tacit version of meanie, take a brake, and prepare a cup of coffee while > it > > is furiously crunching words, just kidding). > > > > Nevertheless, one can compare the relative performance of the > counterparts > > of your example adverb (meanie). The purpose of having a toolkit such as > > the one shown in the Tacit Toolkit (was dyadic J) thread (see, > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015-December/043757.html > ) > > is to make one's life easier. So, > > > > NB. Using J Wicked Toolkit script... > > > > NB. Performance comparison verb... > > Cut=. -.&a: @: (<;._2@,~) > > st=. (, */&.:>@:(1 2&{))@:(] ; 7!:2@:] ; 6!:2) > > stp2=. [ ((('Sentence Space Time')(;:x , <y)'Space * Time') , st&>) LF > > Cut ] > > stp=. stp2 f. ". o ('0 : 0'c) > > > > NB. The definitions of the two contestants > > > > meanie=. 1 :0 NB. Your way > > +/ % # > > ) > > > > minie=. (+/ % #)cv adv NB. My wicked way > > > > stp 666 > > _ meanie > > _ minie > > ) > > ┌────────┬─────┬─────────────┬────────────┐ > > │Sentence│Space│Time │Space * Time│ > > ├────────┼─────┼─────────────┼────────────┤ > > │_ meanie│4736 │8.9414424e_6 │0.0423466712│ > > ├────────┼─────┼─────────────┼────────────┤ > > │_ minie │21376│5.31949556e_5│1.13709537 │ > > └────────┴─────┴─────────────┴────────────┘ > > > > ".&> '_ meanie 1 2 3' ; '_ minie 1 2 3' > > 2 2 > > > > Right, you have a point, meanie is meaner that minie (but no much hope > for > > a long break while minie is doing its thing though). I am curious do you > > have an example where adverbial (or conjunctional) performance might be > > critical? Be that as it may, the reason of the out-performance is the > > relative lack of support for general adverbial (and conjunctional) tacit > > writing. However, J is open source and one can put a remedy: the > following > > adverb (moe) uses a corresponding Jx Tacit Toolkit, > > > > moe=. (+/ % #)cv adv NB. Jx Wicked way > > > > stp 666 > > _ meanie > > _ minie > > _ moe > > ) > > ┌────────┬─────┬─────────────┬────────────┐ > > │Sentence│Space│Time │Space * Time│ > > ├────────┼─────┼─────────────┼────────────┤ > > │_ meanie│4736 │1.05577445e_5│0.050001478 │ > > ├────────┼─────┼─────────────┼────────────┤ > > │_ minie │21376│6.20778363e_5│1.32697583 │ > > ├────────┼─────┼─────────────┼────────────┤ > > │_ moe │2176 │5.5269888e_6 │0.0120267276│ > > └────────┴─────┴─────────────┴────────────┘ > > > > ".&> '_ meanie 1 2 3' ; '_ minie 1 2 3' ; '_ moe 1 2 3' > > 2 2 2 > > > > Apparently moe is meaner than meanie! I do not know, maybe performance > of > > adverbs (and conjunctions) is quite critical after all ;) > > > > Incidentally, since apply (128!:2) and ". have been mentioned several > times > > in this thread I would like to mention that in the latest Jx version > (which > > is still cooking) apply is now dyadic ".. (128!: is kept for > > compatibility), monadic ".. , my favorite wicked verb, is functionally > > equivalent to the J Toolkit adverb train, and ~ is what 104!:1 was > > previously; that is, an extension of the official ~ (see, > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2013-February/031684.html > > and http://www.2bestsystems.com/foundation/j/jx0/index.html). Thus, > > > > '+:' ".. 1 2 3 > > 2 4 6 > > > > ".. +:`.1 2 3 > > 2 4 6 > > > > '+:'~ 1 2 3 > > 2 4 6 > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
