Not sure what point you're making, Jose. I'm not trying to argue that released / maintained products should / shouldn't contain tacit definitions. Ditto explicit ones. Mine will contain both.
Andrew commented that an explicit definition gives him a bad feeling. "Bleah" was the word he used. It does me too. I was trying to explain why, on a rational basis. But sometimes it's the only thing that works. (Or is the whole approach wrong?) Ian On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: >>If you're like me, mostly building products for sale, then Andrew is >>right. Psychology holds the key. Gerry Weinberg (in "The Psychology of > > > Then I (for one) am very glad that our company does not sell, at least not > directly, the tacit systems that we code! > > > ________________________________ > From: Ian Clark <[email protected]> > To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 11:02:01 AM > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Tacit exercise > > Let me take issue with Björn (amicably :) over this. It's not just a > matter of taste. It is what suits you -- for the sort of coding you > do. Number theory research? You'll love J for its freedom from anal > clutter. > > If you're like me, mostly building products for sale, then Andrew is > right. Psychology holds the key. Gerry Weinberg (in "The Psychology of > Computer Programming" http://tinyurl.com/2mvj57) tells the tale of > $K's being spent (at 60's costs) to track down a single bug: a memory > location labelled ONE which once in a while held the value 2. > > To me, what distinguishes software developers from bit-pushers is the > lengths they'll go to avoid the Weinberg Bug. > > I've coded in anger with scores of languages, most now thankfully > defunct. What makes a bad language for me (or a construct to avoid) is > one that "says" something else than what it actually does. > > To me, programming is all about Binding. Names to entities. Arguments > to functions. Values to variables. Numerals to each other to make > vectors. And eventually $$$ to my wallet. What matters is when the > binding happens. Strictly right-to-left in an expression? When the > expression is executed? When the function is called? When the app is > run -- or actually when it's written? > > This is why I get a bad feeling with code residing in strings executed > at run-time. Also global vars. They save you having to think too hard > when writing the code in the first place. But all that's wasted when > you have to manage a bug-farm. 'Cos globals are caches -- and there's > always sometime when a cache is out of date. > > That's why I was deeply unhappy recently when I found myself writing: > > items=: 3 : 'i. #TT' NB. the valid indexes of rows of TT, a > user-loaded table, which can vary. > > Why was I unhappy? For every single one of the reasons I've stated. > > So, being a J rabbit, I thought I'd be clever and "go tacit", making > that instead: > > items=: 13 : 'i. #TT' > > and (shame!) I neglected to look at how "items" actually got coded. > Oh-no! The Weinberg bug. To me the two expressions "say" the same > thing -- but they aren't! > > I spent the whole evening writing code that tested-out ok -- as I > thought. Until I started up J the next day. That's when the bug first > appeared. > > MORAL: go tacit where you can... but go canny! > > BTW Who'd care to volunteer what was wrong with my whole approach to > "items"? I bet I get a different answer from everybody. I have my own > answer of course. But I'd like to hear others' first. > > Ian > > > 2009/12/20 Björn Helgason <[email protected]>: >> I think it is rather the opposite that most objections to J has been >> from people who do not understand tacit. >> The explicit definitions are not at all ugly either. >> I think it is more a matter of taste and understanding. >> >> The explcit definitions and comments are often much better and >> especially for beginners. >> >> Tacit programming can be very nice and it can also be horribly complex >> and scary looking. >> >> 2009/12/20 Andrew Nikitin <[email protected]>: >>> >>> I think the reason that so many people dislike explicit definitions is >>> because they are syntactically ugly. Multiline is only mildly ugly, but >>> single line is a freak. Come on, >>> >>> length=:3 : '%: +/ *: y' ? >>> >>> Bleah. Clean, easy to read and still bleah. >>> >>> This and only this fuels myth of alleged superiority of purely tacit >>> expressions. >>> Because ugly cannot be good. >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/ >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Björn Helgason, Verkfræðingur >> Fornustekkum II >> 781 Hornafirði >> Po Box 127,801 Selfoss , >> t-póst: [email protected] >> gsm: +3546985532 >> sími: +3544781286 >> http://groups.google.com/group/J-Programming >> >> >> Tæknikunnátta höndlar hið flókna, sköpunargáfa er meistari einfaldleikans >> >> góður kennari getur stigið á tær án þess að glansinn fari af skónum >> /|_ .-----------------------------------. >> ,' .\ / | Með léttri lund verður | >> ,--' _,' | Dagurinn í dag | >> / / | Enn betri en gærdagurinn | >> ( -. | `-----------------------------------' >> | ) | (\_ _/) >> (`-. '--.) (='.'=) ♖♘♗♕♔♙ >> `. )----' (")_(") ☃☠ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
