Bruno Daniel wrote:
We should never forget that programming languages are just tools, not
religions.
pshaw!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.emacs/browse_thread/thread/61e8ff3d322a7a48/4b10bf60fba869cc#4b10bf60fba869cc
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.emacs/browse_thread/thread/833afb0d3f25338/2fbe67977e31a56c?lnk=gst&q=beheld+tarball#2fbe67977e31a56c
oh yes _religion_ , not deep black magick. I'm sorry you're right. :)
I came to the conclusion that J (and Lisp as well) is not quite the language I
was looking for
I cant give up the interactivity of Lisp... it is so easy to experiment
with.
and I'm leaving for Haskell which is quite similar to J in
some respects (and offers some further benefits):
To me, Haskell suffers from two models of computation - monads and
arrows. The predecessor of Haskell, Clean, offers uniqueness typing
instead of these two models. And I met you on the Maxima list Bruno. I
dont think there is nearly as powerful a math package for Haskell as Maxima.
no penalty for the elegance of these
abstractions),
Elegant and Haskell are nearly synonomous. I've almost had tears come to
my eyes when looking at the crisp, clear succinct solutions to problems
it provides. On the other hand, I never savored having to have my
program type-check completely before running it.
both are well parallelizable (see
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/blog ), which may well become the most
important feature of programming languages in the upcoming years,
Strong agree with you here. I have a Perl program that is _crying_ for
coarse-grain parallelism, but I dont have time to rework it. But that
blog entry you pointed to shows how easily Haskell can parallelize an
algorithm without losing the clarity of information flow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
