I guess my years as a math teacher would make me write:
p=: [: %: [: +/ *: p 3 4 5 After that: %: 25 5 (*:^:_1) 25 5 And finally: q=: +/&.:*: q 3 4 5 Linda -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roger Hui Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 9:25 AM To: Programming forum Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Tacit vs. Explicit Paradigm and its Long-Term Impact > The theorem of Pythagoras is easier in J than in traditional notation > +/ &.: *: 3 4 > 5 Easier still: 3 +&.*: 4 5 And the notation suggests generalizations into other areas. http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Under ----- Original Message ----- From: Bo Jacoby <[email protected]> Date: Friday, September 30, 2011 1:19 Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Tacit vs. Explicit Paradigm and its Long-Term Impact To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > > > It takes a lot of practice to 'think' in advanced J, but simple > J is easy: > 23+55+9918+44 > 10040 > > The theorem of Pythagoras is easier in J than in traditional notation > +/ &.: *: 3 4 > 5 > > > > > > >________________________________ > >Fra: Bill Harris <[email protected]> > >Til: Programming forum <[email protected]> > >Sendt: 5:17 fredag den 30. september 2011 > >Emne: Re: [Jprogramming] Tacit vs. Explicit Paradigm and its > Long-Term Impact > > > >On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Raul Miller > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> I do not do so directly, but I often find that I think about > problems>> in terms of J, and that that often helps me focus on > relevant issues > >> and useful approaches. > >> > >> But shouldn't this discussion be in chat, rather than in > programming?>> > >> Raul, > > > >Perhaps, but I left it here because I think it pertains to > programming.> > >I think in words in English or German. I don't have to puzzle > through that; > >it's become natural enough so that I just do it. When I read > something by > >an author such as Faulkner or Kant, I may indeed have to think more > >carefully, but that's not the way I normally write. > > > >Would I be better off if I thought analytically in J, too? > Would increased > >skill in that regard give me more analytical strength? > > > >If so, would I get to the point that writing a program is to > thinking as > >writing an email is to talking: just setting down "on paper" > what was going > >through my head? Would that make me a better programmer? Is > that what Ken > >was talking about when writing about a notation of thought? > > > >Feel free to move this to chat or to let it die, as you wish. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
