Further on this comment Andrew, don’t get bogged down in the topic of tacit, you can get a lot of benefit form using J in native or explicit form and leave tacit for later.
I have been programming in array languages for many years and also confess to being mesmerised by some of the tacit expressions which I do not find immediately readable at all, especially when peppered with ASCII like punctuation. Dissect certainly helps, but coding tacit for tacit’s sake is not something I get hung up about, you can derive huge benefit without it, but it can be nice to use when it becomes more familiar to you, as people show here when they create a group of small compact verb trains (or phrases) which together make a compact solution. Rob Hodgkinson > On 29 Nov 2017, at 8:38 am, Andrew Dabrowski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As a beginner I find it impossible to parse a moderately sized tacit >> expression. No doubt one gets better at this, but like all computer >> languages, the one dimensional space it lives in seems to confound any >> attempts to represent mathematical ideas directly. > > A computer language based on mathematical notation sounds like a cool but > impractical idea. It would to have to be 2 dimensional, as in fact math > notation is. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
