Hi Ellas, I remember your earlier work and comments. In fact, that is the source of my knowledge of this.
Putting more features on a base with known issues is problematic for the following reasons: 1. The time and effort it would take to secure the base is being spent elsewhere. 2. Adding new features is, in effect, ignoring the problem and moving on. 3. APL is good and useful as it is. If it's not being used as-is, then there is some other issue (like efficiency). I remember another post about unnecessary bloat because of the unnecessary copying. This was causing his machine to page unnecessarily. The unnecessary coping is major in terms of performance and memory efficiency. This is big. 4. APL was developed with the promise of parallel processing. This is something that wasn't practical back then, but is now. I am under the impression that this was one of the big reasons Juergen created GNU APL - to take advantage of parallel processing. Just one opinion. Blake On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Blake, > > I agree those are important points too. Some time ago, I spent time trying > to improve those things. Unfortunately, my approach turned out to be a dead > end. I have some other ideas but those require a significantly different > underlying architecture. Essentially, it requires a garbage collector, > which changes things quite a bit. > > I'm sure Jürgen can go into more detail, but my impression is that > avoiding copying is much harder than it seems. > > Regards, > Elias > > On 4 Jul 2017 22:57, "Blake McBride" <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> My list would be different: >> >> 1. don't clone arrays unnecessarily >> >> 2. improve support for parallel processing >> >> With these, GNU APL would be much more efficient. I think moving the >> focus to CPU and memory efficiency is much more important than adding >> extensions of any sort. >> >> --blake >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Jürgen, >>> >>> I think we understand each others positions, and agree that they are not >>> entirely the same. >>> >>> That said, your points are very well taken, and for the most part I >>> actually agree with you. >>> >>> I have a wishlist of features that I personally believe are important. >>> For the most part, these have been discussed previously but here they are >>> for completeness sake: >>> >>> 1. Bignums >>> 2. Lexical binding. >>> 3. First-class functions. >>> 4. Rational numbers >>> 5. Some kind of easy-to-use imperative structure (i.e. something >>> better than the horrific :If :Then :Else structure in Dyalog) >>> 6. Some kind of complex datastructure (again, something better than >>> the Dyalog classes) >>> >>> Note that out of these, the only feature that would change the semantics >>> compared to the ISO spec is the first, bignums. At least if it's >>> implemented in the "natural" way. >>> >>> I've considered working on some of these myself, but I have no intention >>> of doing so if you're against these ideas in principle. I certainly have no >>> desire to maintain my own version. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Elias >>> >>> On 4 July 2017 at 03:21, Juergen Sauermann < >>> juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Elias, >>>> >>>> thanks for explaining your position. >>>> >>>> My concern about free software is not so much political but more >>>> practical. >>>> >>>> If I look at programming languages, then my impression is that those >>>> languages that make the >>>> exchange of software simple are more successful than those that do not. >>>> >>>> Historically it has always been possible to exchange APL software from >>>> one interpreter to another, >>>> but it was never easy. Most of the code can be exchanged via *.ATF* >>>> files, but the problems were >>>> often tiny incompatibilities. These incompatibilities are spread all >>>> over the code, so getting some >>>> APL workspace to work on a different machine is still an adventure. >>>> >>>> That is why I prefer to stick to the ISO standard, no matter how bad it >>>> is. As long as you use only >>>> standardised APL functions you have very few compatibility problems. >>>> There are some, but they >>>> are well known. But every new function that is not standardised moves >>>> you away from portability. >>>> If I object to implementing some new function than this is not for >>>> political reasons, but because I >>>> am afraid that the additional incompatibility makes the exchange of APL >>>> software more difficult. >>>> >>>> In some cases the function is so important that the incompatibility has >>>> to be accepted. Examples >>>> for that are certainly ⎕SQL, ⎕FIO, and maybe dyadic ⎕CR and ⎕DLX. These >>>> functions are almost >>>> impossible to implement efficiently by APL's own means. >>>> >>>> On the other end (from my point of view) we have things like the KEY >>>> function. I still believe that it >>>> rather fits into the FinAPL Idiom Library than into GNU APL. It is >>>> shorter than one APL line and if >>>> you make it an idiom then it remains portable between all APL >>>> interpreters while otherwise it is only >>>> portable between GNU APL and Dyalog APL. >>>> >>>> I am open to implementing a feature if it is really useful, but only >>>> then. Becoming a leader in >>>> implementing new feature is not one of my priorities. There are enough >>>> other APLs that are >>>> keen on that (e.g. Dyalog and NARS, see http://www.nars2000.org). The >>>> ambition of GNU APL >>>> has always been to become a stable standard interpreter some day. That >>>> is difficult enough, and >>>> we have learned from PL/I how too many features can kill a language. >>>> And I have seen too many >>>> software projects that failed due to being overly ambitious. I simply >>>> do not want to share their fate. >>>> >>>> Regarding emacs, I can't help to note that I am not using it, because >>>> it is, for my taste, too complex. >>>> I rather prefer something simpler like vi. Sometimes less is just more. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> /// Jürgen >>>> >>>> >>>> On 07/03/2017 04:00 PM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Jürgen, and thanks for your thorough reply. >>>> >>>> In terms of the usefulness of Key, I don't disagree with you. I'd >>>> certainly like to see even more flexible solutions. >>>> >>>> Where we do disagree is what the goal of free software is. Arguably >>>> there are probably as many goals as there are people. >>>> >>>> What follows below is an explanation as to why I disagree with your >>>> assessment as to what is the best for Free Software. Please don't take it >>>> as personal criticism. You know that I have the deepest respect for you as >>>> the maintainer and author of GNU APL. >>>> >>>> After spending quite some time on the Emacs Development mailing list, I >>>> have learned quite a bit about what the FSF's goals are with regards to >>>> what they call "Free Software". Time and time again, RMS has stated that >>>> the goal of GNU is to make people use commercial software less. In order >>>> words, if a project can implement a feature that draws people away from >>>> commercial software towards Free Software, then that is what the project >>>> should do. >>>> >>>> At this point, I'd like to clarify that I am not completely in >>>> agreement with RMS on this. In the Emacs project, this position has >>>> prevented Emacs from gaining certain important features, simply because >>>> they would have made it easier to use "non-free" software together with >>>> Emacs. This is a position I don't agree with. >>>> >>>> I'd really like to see GNU APL become a leader in implementing new >>>> features. That way perhaps we get more people to switch. The point I'm >>>> making here is that by implementing useful features that would make people >>>> choose GNU APL before any alternative, then the project would better serve >>>> the GNU goals. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Elias >>>> >>>> On 3 July 2017 at 21:36, Juergen Sauermann < >>>> juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Elias, >>>>> >>>>> thaks. The explanation is a bit clearer but the problems remain. >>>>> >>>>> Key is a non-standard APL function and we should be careful with the >>>>> implementation >>>>> of non-standard functions. >>>>> >>>>> Every function in GNU APL is an invitation to use it. If the function >>>>> is obviously useful then it improves >>>>> the language. If it merely solves a particular programming case, then >>>>> it may improve GNU APL a little, >>>>> but at the price of incompatibility. Programs using it become less >>>>> portable and that undermines the >>>>> goal of free software. >>>>> >>>>> So the question in such cases is how useful is a function and is that >>>>> usefulness worth the incompatibility? >>>>> >>>>> In the case of the key function I would say no. >>>>> >>>>> First of all the key function can only be used if the data it operates >>>>> on is organized in a specific way: that >>>>> the first column is the key. That may be the case but the fact that >>>>> this is needed is somewhat contrary to >>>>> how other APL function work. You could also call that arbitrary. >>>>> >>>>> That goal can easily achieved by other means. If I have a single >>>>> *KEY* then something along the lines of >>>>> >>>>> *((DATA[1;]≡KEY)⌿KEY)[1;]* >>>>> >>>>> will give me the first row (or all rows if I remove the right [1;]) in >>>>> an array that has that KEY. I suppose that is >>>>> more or less what the key function does (plus applying some function >>>>> on that expression). The expression is >>>>> even superior to a function because it can be used at the left side of >>>>> an assignment. >>>>> >>>>> If that is so then the key function is only one of several APL idioms >>>>> (see http://aplwiki.com/FinnAplIdiomLibrary >>>>> for a rather famous list of more than 700 such idioms). Each of the >>>>> 700+ idioms is useful and would deserver >>>>> its own symbol, but if we would do so (which is technically possible >>>>> due to Unicode) then we would have turned >>>>> GNU APL into an unreadable mess. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> Jürgen Sauermann >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 07/03/2017 05:50 AM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The key function is better described in the Dyalog reference manual, >>>>> on page 153 here: http://docs.dyalog.com/1 >>>>> 6.0/Dyalog%20APL%20Language%20Reference%20Guide.pdf >>>>> >>>>> Essentially, it's a grouping function. It's used to create groups of >>>>> similar things, and apply a function on the individual instances. The >>>>> examples in the section I referenced above should be pretty clear, I >>>>> think. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Elias >>>>> >>>>> On 3 July 2017 at 00:51, Juergen Sauermann < >>>>> juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Elias, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not quite in favour of it and it has problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not on my keyboard (even though I am using a Dyalog keyboard). >>>>>> Not to talk about other keyboards. >>>>>> >>>>>> It does not really look like need-to-have function and I suppose it >>>>>> can be >>>>>> efficiently performed by a short combination of other APL primitives. >>>>>> >>>>>> In my opinion adding primitives for every imaginable use case (and >>>>>> there are certainly use cases for the key function) leads to an >>>>>> overloading >>>>>> of the APL language in the long run and does not improve the language. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another problem is that after reading the description several times, >>>>>> I still >>>>>> can't explain in simple terms what the function is actually doing. >>>>>> That makes it >>>>>> a good candidate for a never used function if it should ever be >>>>>> implemented. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> Jürgen Sauermann >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/02/2017 06:24 PM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> How about implementing the key function, ⌸? >>>>>> >>>>>> It's described in this article on the Dyalog site: >>>>>> https://www.dyalog.com/blog/2015/04/exploring-key/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Jürgen, are you in favour of this function? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Elias >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
