Tacit are great and we can surely all agree on that.
What is problem is understanding them and they need a lot of understanding
and effort.
I try not to show tacit to people without a lot of explanation.
2010/11/21 Marshall Lochbaum <mlochb...@raleighcharterhs.org>
> I strongly disagree. I write only tacit expressions when they are not of
> ridiculous length, and I would rather have a few lines of tacit than a lot
> of explicit lines.
> Tacit also avoids having to write variable names over and over again in the
> same line, which otherwise would be cumbersome.
>
> Marshall
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: programming-boun...@jsoftware.com [mailto:
> programming-boun...@jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Tom Arneson
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 11:17 AM
> To: 'Programming forum'
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] tacit programming
>
> I agree with Bjorn. I only use very simple tacit programs, and usually
> create them with 13 :
>
> I cannot read the complex ones without a lot of effort.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: programming-boun...@jsoftware.com [mailto:
> programming-boun...@jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Björn Helgason
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 08:29
> To: Programming forum
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] tacit programming
>
> I completely disagree.
> There are very few people who can read and understand tacit expressions.
>
> 2010/11/16 Don Guinn <dongu...@gmail.com>
>
> > I thought the original issue was on how readable tacit expressions
> > are, not the correctness or most efficient the expression. Based on
> > the comments in this thread it seems that people can read the original
> > tacit expression quite well.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Roger Hui <rhui...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > > My input is numbers and my output is numbers and fundamentally I'm
> > > > doing arithmetic - so why should I have to translate to strings &
> > > > back? (I know the answer, I'm just giving you my thought process.
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > I am curious regarding what "the answer" is.
> > >
> > > There is an analogy from mathematics. Number theory (the study of
> > > integers) advanced by leaps and bounds with the application of the
> > > the machinery of calculus and complex analysis. Why should complex
> > > numbers have anything to do with integers?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Dan Bron <j...@bron.us>
> > > Date: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:30
> > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] tacit programming
> > > To: 'Programming forum' <programming@jsoftware.com>
> > >
> > > > Raul wrote:
> > > > > {.&.":&> seems more natural than anything involving #:
> > > > or #.inv
> > > >
> > > > I'll buy that as a practical matter. But as a notational matter,
> > > > it just doesn't "feel" right to me. My input is numbers and my
> > > > output is numbers and fundamentally I'm doing arithmetic - so why
> > > > should I have to translateto strings & back? (I know the answer,
> > > > I'm just giving you my thought process. This similar to the
> > > > reason I was nettled by
> > > > "."0@": being
> > > > optimized rather than 10&#.^:_1 [1] .)
> > > >
> > > > > An issue here is that #: and #.inv are designed to pad
> > > > with leading
> > > >
> > > > Yep, that's what stymied the first correction I sent to Bjorn: I
> > > > had [:
> > > > ({."1) 10 #.^:_1 p:@:i. but I had to change it to
> > > > {.@(10&#.^:_1)@p:@:i.for exactly this reason (naturally, I
> > > > realized this 14 microseconds after hitting "send" - OTOH I am
> > > > always pleased to find a natural use for @ as opposed to @: and
> > > > since {."1 required parens anyway, the new formulationwasn't any
> > > > messier).
> > > >
> > > > But #: padding on the left is helpful much more often than it is
> > > > a nuisance (we're array programmers, after all), so I shouldn't
> > > > complain.
> > > > -Dan
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://www.jsoftware.com/help/release/digits10.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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Björn Helgason, Verkfræðingur
> Fornustekkum II
> 781 Hornafirði,
> t-póst: gos...@gmail.com
> 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
>
--
Björn Helgason, Verkfræðingur
Fornustekkum II
781 Hornafirði,
t-póst: gos...@gmail.com
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
