I wrote: > Sometimes in life we do not > get to choose our goals. Let us imagine a scenario where my goal is not to compute the dates of Easter, but to write a verb with the characteristics I outlined.
For the sake of argument, let us say I, and my whole family, have been captured by Jesuit terrorists. They have ordered me to write a J verb that takes in the table & some years as input, and produces the corresponding dates of Easter as output. Of course, they already know the dates of Easter (along with the catechism, this is tattooed in the insides of their eyelids). Their true aims are more nefarious; they have discovered a divine scroll with a similar table, and decoding it will grant them unmentionable powers. Their wizened scholars have concluded that any program with the characteristics I described will suffice to decode the scroll. Of course, being enamored of mysterious symbols, they have chosen J as the language to implement this program (they would have chosen APL, but they discovered they couldn't email it around). At first, they tried legitimate means to locate a J programmer. They searched the hills, they searched the valleys, they searched the deeps & they searched the skies; all to no avail (a J programmer is a rare beast). At last, in their despair, they searched the web. And lo! And behold! They discovered the J Forums. So, reading the J Forums & picking my name at random (actually, they based their decision on the numerological characteristics of my posts, but, given my verbosity, that's indistinguishable from "random"), they kidnapped me & my family and tasked me as described. I attempted this task, and you have seen the result. Unfortunately, they are not satisfied. They say God can only be seen in the whole, not the parts. They will not accept a scalar solution. They have similar (ly "misguided") reasons for not liking my formulation of "eval". I have attempted to remedy my error, to no avail. After much time (and argument, and torture), I have convinced them I am not up to the task, and must ask for help. They have agreed, on the condition that I do so only by appealing to Man's vices, not his virtues. For example, I am explicitly prohibited from disclosing my situation or urgency because I cannot appeal to your compassion or mercy (though a loophole would permit me to describe thinly veiled hypothetical scenarios, for the sake of argument). But I _am_ explicitly permitted to appeal to, for example, your pride. EG, I am allowed to mention that when I said: > I would be particularly impressed with solutions that > used the dyad ;: to lex & parse the dividend I particularly had you (Raul) in mind, because in my memory, you've wielded this tool the most effectively, and frequently. Or, I could goad you into anger, for example by extending this comment > Of course, you don't have to respond to > the challenges, if you don't like them. with "... or if you can't meet them". But again, I could not appeal to your remorse by pointing out that while you could not have known all this when you responded to my original message, none the less by trying to direct my attention away from the problem as stated, you've actually led me astray, and put me & my whole family in dire straits. Anyway, you can see how, in this scenario, I could fairly describe the terrorists' virtue/vice constraint as "misguided", I could scream and kick and shout, I could (and would) cry and bleed, and yet it would do me no good. I would have no recourse. Sometimes in life we do not get to choose our goals. See also [1] -Dan [1] "Yes, the don't-do-that advice is controversial." http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2010-September/020532.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
