Oh that is a very nicely-formatted version. Thank you so much!
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 13:12, <[email protected]> wrote: > With attachment...... > > > ------ Original Message ------ > *Received: *01:09 PM PST, 02/24/2021 > *From: *[email protected] > *To: *Russtopia <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: GNU APL versus 'tacit' style > > > Welcome Russ, > > APL2, the language, is standardized in ISO standard 13751. The mischief > you are experiencing is non-standard extensions. > > I'm unsure what you mean by "tacit style"... indeed style is a very > subjective topic and therefore WAY above my pay grade. > > There are lot's of excellent on-line resources including a comprehensive > FAQ <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/apl-faq/> and idiom libraries. I've > attached one by IBM' most of the idioms are language independent and the > ones that aren't shouldn't be hard to identify. > > APL2 was not designed to be a pure functional language, so it doesn't have > lambdas or closures. The language originated as a notation to simplify > tensor algebra by Kenneth Iverson at IBM; it was *subsequently* > implemented as an interpreted language. Believe it or not, Iverson wrote a > high school algebra text--all in APL notation. Needless to say, it's > pedigree is completely different from that of LISP and its dependents. This > said, closures and lambdas are pretty handy; but, because they are > extensions to the ISO standard language, the correct spelling for them is > "vendor lock-in". > > Back in the early years APL came with an excellent tutorial, but to the > best of my knowledge this practice has "devolved". A good book to get you > started is APL2 by Brown, et. al.--but to my shock and horror it's > stratospherically expensive... maybe there is some introductory stuff > on-line... > > Good luck. > > /John > > > ------ Original Message ------ > *Received: *12:31 PM PST, 02/24/2021 > *From: *Russtopia <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Subject: *GNU APL versus 'tacit' style > > > What is the general consensus among GNU APL users here on the newer 'tacit > style' that seems so prevalent in many online APL resources nowadays? > ('forks', 'trains', etc.) > > As a new, inexperienced APLer, exploring a bit more with GNU APL, I wonder > if it discourages people new to APL to find, as I have, that so many > resources online appear to be quite Dyalog-focused so the examples do not > work as presented within GNU APL. > > I am aware that GNU APL is an 'APL2' implementation for the most part, > which is fine by itself and I think it is important to have this > open-source, free implementation. However it concerns me somewhat that > newcomers to GNU APL may be discouraged to find so many examples online > that are incompatible. > > Perhaps if I were myself experienced enough, I would write a GNU APL > equivalent to the 'APL cart' (aplcart.info) with a focus on translating > common idioms from 'tacit style' to APL2 style. (Indeed, perhaps such > resources exist and I apologize if I have merely not encountered them yet. > I have yet to study in-depth the older 'Finn APL idiom library' and > similar). > > As for adding tacit style to GNU APL, I do not advocate one way or the > other, as I do not have sufficient experience for an informed opinion. How > much value would the 'tacit' syntax bring to GNU APL? Would it even be > possible to add without breaking APL2 conformance? > > I also see a lot of usage online of 'guards' within lambdas which GNU APL > seems to lack -- would the language benefit from adding support for that or > would many of you say it is just 'syntactic sugar'? > > Just some thoughts from an APL newcomer. I enjoy it, and am grateful to > Dr. Sauermann et al. for their hard work. > > -Russ > > > > > >
