The big difference, from my point of view is that atomic representation is slightly more formal:
There are some word formation issues which can only hit you using string representation of the code. And, if you have an atomic representation of a partial phrase, you've eliminated some possible alternative atomic representations. And, working with the atomic representation gives you a little insight into how the interpreter 'sees' the string representations. (Speedups usually only matter when working with large data sets, or with particularly inane computational approaches or with real-time contexts where you're dealing with something happening quickly in the outside world.) Thanks, -- Raul On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 7:51 PM Raoul Schorer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have been comparing manually built identical phrases (a dyadic verb > with its arguments) and executing it with ". or `:6. My understanding > was that the advantage of atomic representation was that it bypassed > parsing and that the execution model was: > > input string -> parsing -> atomic representation -> interpretation -> result > > However, I was surprised to see no speedup at all when transitioning > from string to atomic representation. Of course, my particular code may > be the issue. What are the usual strengths and weaknesses of string vs. > atomic representation? > > Thanks! > > Raoul > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
