It seems that the forum mail system is changing the structure (and the content http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-December/017465.html ) of some messages. The message that I resent was modified again in the forum archive and when it was sent back, but a copy that bypassed the forum mail system arrived unaltered. The message http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-December/017466.html (and its copy below) should have looked (and should look) as (with some luck this will be shown properly!): >Not sure what point you're making, Jose. Let me try to make it less puzzling. >I'm not trying to argue that released / maintained products should / >shouldn't contain tacit definitions. Ditto explicit ones. Mine will >contain both. I knew you were not arguing to avoid tacit definitions; coding in J totally with out them will be really hard (and pointless). However, in contrast, the tacit production systems that I referred are all-tacit systems (actually function-level systems). >Andrew commented that an explicit definition gives him a bad feeling. >"Bleah" was the word he used. […]
> It's not just a > matter of taste. It is what suits you -- for the sort of coding you > do. I just would like to add: and what makes you comfortable (at a given point in time). ________________________________ From: Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 9:38:53 AM Subject: Fw: [Jprogramming] Tacit exercise ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Thomas Costigliola <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 9:28:46 AM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Tacit exercise I just noticed that in the forum message http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-December/017457.html my second remark was somehow moved all the way to the bottom! (?) Yahoo’s webmail shows it correctly in the Sent folder; so I am resending it. I do not get my own posts back from the forum in my Inbox folder and I have assumed they were the same (apart from some "random" newline formatting); now I am wondering if this has happen before to me (and to other members). ________________________________ From: Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 11:56:22 PM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Tacit exercise >Not sure what point you're making, Jose. Let me try to make it less puzzling. >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. But he immediately added, >>> This and only this fuels myth of alleged superiority of purely tacit >>> expressions. >>> Because ugly cannot be good. Regarding, >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?) I have pointed out perhaps too much (or perhaps not enough?) in the forum, that the all tacit way should always be possible because it is Turing-complete. That alone, of course, does not make it superior but after a tacit (functional) verb is (properly) fixed it becomes a function-level program (see also June's comment in this context, http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-December/017442.html ) which is very convenient: no names, no name conflicts; no variables, no global variables, no (induced) side-effects, no surprises (no worries) "and, arguably, [function-level programs] are often easier to understand and reason" ( see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function-level_programming ). Yet, I do not really want argue too much (just trying to be fair) because ultimately it is not in my best interest (http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-December/017408.html ) and after all I agree with your remark, > It's not just a > matter of taste. It is what suits you -- for the sort of coding you > do. I just would like to add: and what makes you comfortable (at a given point in time). I knew you were not arguing to avoid tacit definitions; coding in J totally with out them will be really hard (and pointless). However, in contrast, the tacit production systems that I referred are all-tacit systems (actually function-level systems). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
