I saw your argument, but I don't think it answers my assertion that APL/J is a fine language for calculation but not for general programming.
Btw, that Dijkstra is no longer living is hardly a reason not to take issue with his statements. On 01/08/2018 05:30 PM, Roger Hui wrote: > Dijkstra is dead and it's kind of unfair to argue against him. But I do > have one such argument: *A Letter from Dijkstra on APL > <http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/Dijkstra_Letter.htm>*. > > Another paper which is relevant to your question, is *A History of APL in > 50 Functions* <http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/50/>. It's in APL but can > easily be done in J (other than being 50 years old). > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Dabrowski, Andrew John <[email protected] >> wrote: >> After reading "Algebra as Language" and "Computers and Mathematical >> Notation", I'm starting to see J the perfect language for numerical >> computation. But for general purpose programming I can see Dijkstra's >> point. >> >> When APL was designed computers were seen largely as calculating >> machines. But by the 1970s GUIs were starting to be developed, and >> computers were being applied in areas where tensors were no longer adequate >> as the sole data structure. One thing general purpose programming >> languages must have is extensibility, and that J lacks. >> >> I'm trying to work out what the appropriate use cases are for J, and I >> think it's calculating with tensors. If you need more than tensors, or if >> you need more than calculation (e.g. GUIs), J is not a good choice. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
