dydre wrote: > 1. The notation J layers many things in unique ways and > they are not completely documented.
I don't know what this means. (I know what 'needs to be documented' would mean, but I do not know how to distinguish between contexts where the above is an issue and where it is not an issue.) > 2. Reading requires recognition and many people give up > when they can't recognize things. Agreed. This is an issue in any context that involves learning. > 3. Mapping a symbol that you think you recognize to > the wrong concept can cause misunderstanding and confusion. Again, this is true. This tends to be far more a problem with natural languages (like English) than computer languages (like J). Then again, people tend to have far more exposure to natural languages which tends to balance things out. > (c) Primitives of APL did allow a level of abstraction that did > simplify underlying complexity. J permits you to compress complex > ideas but it is not necessarily by simplifying an underlying > complexity. I don't know what this means. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
