Since the time taking is small, better to run n times
to obtain an average.
+ and - are scalar functions of rank-0, but J has
integrated rank support so that there will be no
performance penalty if its arguments are arrays.
@ will inherent the rank of - , better to use @: in
this case.
50 ts'(3 :''-y'')@- v'
0.183617 8.39565e6
50 ts't@- v'
0.105698 8.3904e6
50 ts'(3 :''-y'')@:- v'
0.00245378 1.67837e7
50 ts't@:- v'
0.00206336 8.39002e6
IMO it doesn't matter whether to use tacit or explicit,
the more important thing is to understand how J works.
Сб, 30 сен 2017, Erling Hellenäs написал(а):
> Hi all !
>
> Can tacit and explicit J be interchangeably used everywhere ?
>
> Examples of use:
>
> 4 (3 :'- y')@:(4 :'x + y') 5
> _9
> 3(4 :'(1: x + y)#''x'' ')`(4 :'(1: x + y)#''y'' ')@.(4 :'x < y')4
> y
>
> What are the performance implications of using explicit J instead of tacit
> J?
>
> This little example indicates that tacit J is about twice as fast?
>
> v=.?~1000000
> 10{.v
> 733026 963097 739111 754321 510732 704647 209066 833891 281909 851842
> #v
> 1000000
> t=: -
> e=: 3 :'-y'
> ts't@- v'
> 0.49503 2.6439e8
> ts'e@- v'
> 0.743922 2.6439e8
> ts'(3 :''-y'')@- v'
> 0.38011 2.64395e8
> ts'(-)@- v'
> 0.186993 2.6439e8
> ts'-@- v'
> 0.182542 2.6439e8
> ts'(3 :''- <: >: y'')@- v'
> 0.465578 2.64395e8
> ts'([: - [: <: [: >: ])@- v'
> 0.25002 2.64391e8
> *./ (t@- v) = v
> 1
> *./ (e@- v) = v
> 1
> *./ ((3 :'-y')@- v) = v
> 1
> *./ ((-)@- v) = v
> 1
> *./ (-@- v) = v
> 1
> *./ ((3 :'- <: >: y')@- v) = v
> 1
> *./ (([: - [: <: [: >: ])@- v) = v
> 1
>
> Cheers,
>
> Erling
>
>
>
> On 2017-09-29 20:10, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
> > An additional comment. see below. /Erling
> >
> > On 2017-09-29 04:45, Henry Rich wrote:
> > > Taking your last sentence first, you would have to supply some
> > > evidence to make me believe that tacit forms have any intrinsic
> > > performance penalty.
> > >
> > > It is dawning on me that you want fast function definition, but that
> > > you want it to produce tacit code. You find the current tacit
> > > language difficult, and you propose to replace it with something
> > > that looks more like the explicit language. That seems like a
> > > mistake to me, because:
> > >
> > > 1. Most of the responders on this Forum don't agree with you that
> > > the tacit language is opaque
> > >
> > > 2. Even with a fast function definition, many J programmers (I dare
> > > not say all J programmers with a soul) will always prefer (+ i.) to
> > > (. x + i. y).
> > This is a strange comparison, (+ i.) is comparable to + i. with explicit
> > syntax. [ ( + i. ) ] is comparable to x + i. y and ([ (+ i.) ]) is
> > comparable to (. x + i. y).
> > >
> > > 3. Tacit code is a different mindset from explicit code. It's
> > > functional. It doesn't have assignments or control words
> > >
> > > 4. Operands to modifiers cannot be arguments to tacit code
> > >
> > > 5. Explicit syntax is an improvement in some cases, not all. +/ *:
> > > y is a little lighter than +/@:* y but (+/ y) % #y is heavier than
> > > (+/ % #) y
> > >
> > > 6. So: even if I were redesigning the language from scratch, I
> > > wouldn't represent tacit forms your way. I would, as Roger has
> > > observed, switch the meanings of (u v) and (u@:v), but I would keep
> > > the rest as is.
> > >
> > > [Note for those who have not been using J for more than 10 years:
> > > the original tacit language allowed trains that produced modifiers.
> > > That was, to me, Ken's finest achievement: a really beautiful
> > > language, immensely supple, even though it had no syntactic elements
> > > but the primitives and parentheses. I never found it wanting. It
> > > was fully understood by no more than half a dozen people, I think.
> > > It was removed from J because explicit forms could produce the same
> > > results: a good business decision, but a loss to computer science
> > > and art.]
> > >
> > > 7. The bottom line: tacit forms work pretty well as they are, and an
> > > incompatible change to them could be justified only by a huge
> > > improvement in readability or efficiency. You haven't shown that.
> > >
> > > Henry Rich
> > >
> > > On 9/28/2017 10:09 PM, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
> > > > Hi all !
> > > >
> > > > Is improving explicit J the way forward? Or is tacit J and
> > > > improving tacit J the way forward?
> > > > I also think that "Henry's" proposal, which is similar to what I
> > > > have been writing about for a long time, is great. It is easy
> > > > to do and have great benefits for people working in explicit J.
> > > > They will not have to type lots of double quotes, or write their
> > > > own J versions with special duplicate quote functionality.
> > > > That doesn't mean that tacit J could not also be improved?
> > > > Henry's proposal is nearly identical to my proposal but mine is
> > > > about tacit J, it is addressing problems with tacit J. His is
> > > > about explicit J. It is addressing problems with explicit J, the
> > > > quote duplication problem. I am addressing problems with tacit
> > > > J, mainly the problem which makes people write cross-compilers
> > > > from explicit to tacit J or programs to automatically pack verb
> > > > sequences in tacit J into their packages of brackets and phony
> > > > "compositors", like this - f@:(g@:(h@:(i@:(j@:])))). People who
> > > > are working professionally with tacit J and who knows that
> > > > cheating and writing tacit J like most other people do will slow
> > > > their programs much too much?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Erling
> > > >
> > > > On 2017-09-29 03:13, Joe Bogner wrote:
> > > > > I also like Henry's suggestion of fast function definition. It's also
> > > > > unclear to me on how the Erling's suggestion improves upon that.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Louis de Forcrand
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't really understand what you wish to add either, Erling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you want to use explicit J syntax, you could write an
> > > > > > explicit verb.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You write:
> > > > > > > Particularly to create what you most commonly need, a sequence of
> > > > > > > monadic verbs, each acting on the result of the verb to the right.
> > > > > > > Well, it is not complicated as such, but for some
> > > > > > > reason people don't
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > the obvious way to do it, which is [: f [: g [: h ].
> > > > > > > Then they dive into
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > mess of complications. I mean the cap should not be necessary.
> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > right to left execution should be the default,
> > > > > > > possibly modified with
> > > > > > > parenthesis. That tacit and explicit J should have
> > > > > > > the same basic syntax.
> > > > > > f@:g@:h?
> > > > > > In addition, I disagree with your last two sentences.
> > > > > > What's the point of
> > > > > > having tacit syntax if it's the same as explicit syntax? If you want
> > > > > > explicit syntax, write an explicit verb; other times
> > > > > > tacit syntax is really
> > > > > > practical.
> > > > > > In an explicit verb, simple right to left execution *is* the
> > > > > > default.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In any case I don't really see how the rest of your
> > > > > > suggestion differs
> > > > > > from Henry's (.). verbs, which I like very much by the way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Louis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 28 Sep 2017, at 14:53, Raul Miller <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jose's work is impressive, but I try to avoid it
> > > > > > > because of the extra
> > > > > > > complexity it creates when I want to (for example)
> > > > > > > provide a parameter
> > > > > > > in clauses for conjunctions like &. -- the extra complexity can
> > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > nice mental exercise and maybe even a cure for boredom, but I feel
> > > > > > > that I have the right to treat it as unnecessary.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Raul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Erling Hellenäs
> > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi all !
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am very impressed by Jose's work and I think it is an
> > > > > > > > excellent
> > > > > > > > illustration to why we need the modification to J I propose.
> > > > > > > > It is extremely complicated to do these things
> > > > > > > > which should be simple,
> > > > > > as I
> > > > > > > > see it. Particularly to create what you most
> > > > > > > > commonly need, a sequence
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > monadic verbs, each acting on the result of the verb to the
> > > > > > > > right.
> > > > > > > > Well, it is not complicated as such, but for
> > > > > > > > some reason people don't
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > the obvious way to do it, which is [: f [: g [: h ]. Then they
> > > > > > > > dive
> > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > mess of complications. I mean the cap should not be necessary.
> > > > > > > > That
> > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > > right to left execution should be the default,
> > > > > > > > possibly modified with
> > > > > > > > parenthesis. That tacit and explicit J should have the same
> > > > > > > > basic
> > > > > > syntax. I
> > > > > > > > tried my ideas of a different tacit J in a test
> > > > > > > > implementation and it
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > great.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > Erling Hellenäs
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2017-09-28 05:29, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Erling,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You are right, the adverb (At) produces tacit sentences but
> > > > > > > > > it is
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > implementation of Dan's pipeline proposal
> > > > > > > > > using strand notation via a
> > > > > > > > > Curried adverb (aka, recurrent adverb and multiple adverb).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, I have written (tacitly) a tacit
> > > > > > > > > Curried adverb (xi) which,
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > a lambda-style syntax, produces a tacit verb
> > > > > > > > > which in turn, given its
> > > > > > > > > arguments, produces tacit entities. You
> > > > > > > > > might find xi interesting; the
> > > > > > > > > general form is,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > t=. [: v0 v1 ... vn '...' xi
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The names v0 v1 ... vn should be
> > > > > > > > > syntactically verbs (recall, xi is a
> > > > > > > > > Curried adverb) but they can represent nouns, verbs, adverbs,
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > conjunctions. I use undefined names since those are regarded
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > verbs (even if xi does not affect in any way
> > > > > > > > > the named verbs). The
> > > > > > > > > literal
> > > > > > > > > '...' represents a quoted J (or more generally a Jx) sentence.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is how your example can be written using xi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > erase 'b v'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [: v '([: b ''<:b++/\b-~-.b'' xi
> > > > > > > > > <''\''=v){."0 v' xi <'\\\//\\\//'
> > > > > > > > > \
> > > > > > > > > \
> > > > > > > > > \
> > > > > > > > > /
> > > > > > > > > /
> > > > > > > > > \
> > > > > > > > > \
> > > > > > > > > \
> > > > > > > > > /
> > > > > > > > > /
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is the nuisance of quotes within
> > > > > > > > > quotes and the argument must be
> > > > > > > > > boxed; however, this allows, in general, the verb (t) to
> > > > > > > > > produce a
> > > > > > noun, a
> > > > > > > > > verb, an adverb, or a conjunction and to
> > > > > > > > > take multiple boxed nouns,
> > > > > > verbs,
> > > > > > > > > adverbs, or conjunctions as its argument.
> > > > > > > > > The following verb (t) acts
> > > > > > > > > directly on a couple of (boxed) verbs and produces a verb,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > t=. [: u v 'u/@:v' xi
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > t[:+*:]: NB. Sum of squares
> > > > > > > > > +/@:*:
> > > > > > > > > t[:+*:]: 1 2 3 4 5
> > > > > > > > > 55
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > t[:-%:]: NB. Difference of square roots
> > > > > > > > > -/@:%:
> > > > > > > > > t[:-%:]: 1 2 3 4 5
> > > > > > > > > 1.55390522
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Note that the Curried higher-order verb (t)
> > > > > > > > > is, in effect, acting on
> > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > arguments: [:-%:]: and 1 2 3 4 5;
> > > > > > > > > furthermore, t [:-%:]: performs a
> > > > > > > > > partial
> > > > > > > > > application of the verb (t) acting on [:-%:]: .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The following are variations of the verb
> > > > > > > > > produced in [0], the verb (t)
> > > > > > > > > acts on a (boxed) conjunction and produces an adverb,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > t=. [: u '(ver adv u)&:train/adv' xi
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ]`{.`{:`{: (t [:(<adv@:)]:) NB. Use [:(<'@:')sb in J
> > > > > > > > > ]@:({.@:({:@:{:))
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ]`{.`{:`{: (t [:(<adv@ )]:) NB. Use [:(<'@ ')sb in J
> > > > > > > > > ]@({.@({:@{:))
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ]`{.`{:`{: (t [:(<adv&:)]:) NB. Use [:(<'&:')sb in J
> > > > > > > > > ]&:({.&:({:&:{:))
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > These non-compliant features are not
> > > > > > > > > provided by the Jx interpreter;
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > are, in fact, inherited from the J
> > > > > > > > > interpreter, the Jx facilities just
> > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > them a lot more accessible. Actually, I have written a
> > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > (admittedly
> > > > > > > > > cumbersome) of xi in J; see [1] for a link
> > > > > > > > > to a zip archive and the
> > > > > > path
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > a script where xi is defined.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > PS.
> > > > > > > > > erase'u0 u1 u2'
> > > > > > > > > 1 1 1
> > > > > > > > > [: u0 u1 u2 'u0 + u1 + u2' xi 1 ; 2 ; 3
> > > > > > > > > 6
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > erase'α β γ'
> > > > > > > > > 1 1 1
> > > > > > > > > [: u0 u1 u2 'u0 + u1 + u2' xi [:α β γ]:
> > > > > > > > > α + β + γ
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > References
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [0] [Jprogramming] Gerund composed application
> > > > > > > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017-
> > > > > > > > > September/048797.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] J Wicked Toolkit
> > > > > > > > > http://www.2bestsystems.com/foundation/j/Jx.zip
> > > > > > > > > \Jx\J\J Wicked Toolkit.ijs
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Erling Hellenäs
> > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all !
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pascal, I will come back to your post later.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Here is a little compiler written in Jx
> > > > > > > > > > and compiling, as I understand
> > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > > tacit code with explicit J syntax into
> > > > > > > > > > tacit J. I did not test it, I
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > read the post.
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017-
> > > > > > August/048143.html
> > > > > > > > > > The code snippet Farey is an example of
> > > > > > > > > > the source code of the little
> > > > > > > > > > compiler.
> > > > > > > > > > I just think we should not have to use a tacit J compiler
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > explicit J
> > > > > > > > > > to be able to use explicit J syntax and
> > > > > > > > > > get a tacit result, a single
> > > > > > > > > > verb.
> > > > > > > > > > It would obviously be better to use
> > > > > > > > > > explicit J syntax in the first
> > > > > > > > > > place,
> > > > > > > > > > as i see it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Erling
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > http://www.avg.com
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
--
regards,
====================================================
GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24
gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3
gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --armor --export 4434BAB3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
