It did not go as you described or implied: That is, it was not the case that there was a J dictionary, all written or mostly written, and then the implementation proceeded from that. The process is sketched in "Remembering Ken Iverson" http://keiapl.org/rhui/remember.htm
I don't know that a person who doesn't know APL or J can implement J from the J dictionary. My guess is that the resulting implementation can look quite different. (It may not even be an interactive system, for example.) The current implementation was colored by - years of using APL (since 1975) before writing one line of the implementation. - papers in http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Bibliography (I studied most but not all of the ones before 1989, before writing one line of the implementation.) - in particular, papers in http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/From_APL_to_J ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Bron <j...@bron.us> Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010 13:20 Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] The Ambiguous Dictionary To: J Programming <programming@jsoftware.com> > What is the standard to which the language of DoJ should be > held? What is its purpose? Who is its intended audience? > > I believe, but don't know, that Ken held the standard to > be: whether using the DoJ alone, absent both the author > and a working interpreter, someone competent in compiler design > but not J, could build a working interpreter (and this had nice > side effects for J programmers who'd use it as a reference). > > Obviously, the question about whether this interpreter it would > have behavior identical to the current interpreter is related; > it goes to interpretation (Ken agreed Roger's interpretation > matched his intentions). > > But let us debate the standard the DoJ should aim at, before we > debate whether it meets that standard. > > -Dan > > PS: it would also be interesting to hear some of Roger's > experiences actually using the DoJ to build the interpreter, and > where it may have had ambiguities he needed clarified by Ken > (and more interestingly where the DoJ was revised as a result -- > for surely the DoJ influenced the interpreter, and the > interpreter influenced the DoJ). > > > Please excuse typos; composed on a handheld device. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:56:18 > To: Programming forum<programming@jsoftware.com> > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] The Ambiguous Dictionary > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > > In my opinion R.E. Boss’ point still stands (notwithstanding > > what Wikipedia’s value as a general source of reference might > > be from one’s point of view). What can be sufficiently clear > > to the writer might not be to the reader and redundancy (from > > the author perspective) could clarify the exposition of difficult > > concepts (from a reader’s viewpoint). > > Is there some kind of problem with tutorials and other works providing > this level of redundancy? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
