Thanks for calc2, Ric. I'll have to study it closely because it's much like my own extension, but not exactly so.
I also feel that buttons for the remaining ops are needed now, and that this needn't complicate the demo too much. In fact with the use of 'bind' (and I was confusing 'bind' and Bond but you didn't say anything) my demo has become if anything too simple to illustrate what I originally wanted to. Ian On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Sherlock, Ric <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Ian Clark >> Sent: Tuesday, 2 November 2010 09:33 >> >> > I agreed with Brian that I missed the "equals" button in the original >> calc.ijs. Now I miss the "plus" button. It seems unintuitive to press >> "=" when you want to add. >> >> Hahaha! (Can't please everybody.) Can I interest you in a more >> advanced calculator? It's called J ... :-) >> >> I'm just glad I wasn't on the design team of the original pocket >> calculator. It's subtler than it looks. >> >> Providing both '+' and '=' buttons means adding a whole row or column >> of buttons or it looks untidy. I've a calc with the conventional >> look'n'feel -- but IMO it's too complex to serve as a good demo. >> > > I've attached an alternative layout to the JinaDay wiki page (named > calc2.ijs) that includes separate '=' and '+' buttons. There are also some > minor changes to some of the verbs to make it work more like my calculator > and make it easier for users to add other operation buttons. See if you think > that works/looks OK. > >> > The current phrasing of your "blasphemous comment" has more impact >> but I get the feeling that your actual message is more like: "There is >> no need to get your head around tacit definition". The fact is that >> many of the button handlers in the calc script use tacit code! I >> suppose it comes down to whether you think that being provocative >> rather than reassuring will help get your message across best. >> >> "Here Be Dragons..." >> >> I meant to be reassuring by being provocative. Reassuring (to APLers) >> by being (or, rather, risking being) provocative to J-ers. >> >> De-mystifying a topic is never free from the insinuation that the >> mystery is intentional: or at the very least, serving someone's >> purpose. People are quite smart, you know. If a mystery serves no >> purpose -- or no one's purpose -- it soon gets cleared up. It follows >> that de-mystification is apt be viewed as de-bunking. >> >> It wasn't my intention to debunk. Simply to cast some light. Maybe to >> let in some fresh air. >> >> On first encountering APL my initial response was to feel inadequate. >> I should have felt humble, but instead I felt humiliated. Because at >> the time I was masquerading as a "computer scientist", ie an expert. >> This was back in 1973, when the industry was less fragmented. It was >> "IBM and the Seven Dwarfs" -- and I was IBM. >> >> So I looked for holes. For excuses to label APL as mad, not brilliant. >> Then I'd be exposed as sane, not stupid. It reassured me to swap sly >> remarks about the language, especially as others felt the same as I. >> >> On first encountering J, I experienced the selfsame feeling I had on >> first meeting APL. It largely revolved around "tacit programming". >> Attempts by those who'd Seen The Light to motivate me by saying "it's >> really quite easy" -- or -- "it's far better than APL doing it this >> way" simply provoked hostility. And not just in me, I observed. >> >> So there was a barrier to surmount, before I could contemplate J >> equably, let alone consider using it myself for a serious task. >> >> Tacit programming _isn't_ "really quite easy". In principle, maybe... >> But in practice it's as much a strain as coding in 68000 ASM. (Yes, >> done that -- and sold the result). >> >> And that, I think, is the way to look at it. Those who can do it can >> justly be proud of their skill. But nobody is ashamed of not being >> able to compose 68000 machine code in their heads without computer >> assistance, so why should they be when it's tacit J? >> >> There is this difference. Machine-code is best kept beneath the >> covers. But tacit J beneficially seeps out. As you observe, there's >> tacit code in calc.ijs. >> >> IMO the issue over tacit J is not whether we should banish (digit&1) >> from calc.ijs, but whether we should aim to make novices ashamed of >> writing: >> quo=: 3 : 'Q,(":>y),Q' NB. place datum in quotes >> instead of: >> quo=: Q , Q ,~ [: ": > >> because that, I think, has been counter-productive. >> >> They'll do so in the end... and like as not they won't know they're >> doing it. > > I agree that it is counterproductive to denigrate the use of explicit > definition. I don't think that happens really, although I know that a lot of > code on the forums is tacit. As I said recently on comp.lang.apl I think this > is really just a side effect of more experienced users thinking and working > more in tacit mode. > > I remember when I started learning J that I pretty much "ignored" trying to > create tacit verbs - I was content to stick with explicit. I found the tacit > code on the forum hard to read/understand. I think my biggest hurdle in > coming to terms with tacit was being able to reliably identify the parts of > speech for J's various primitives (verb vs adverb vs conjunction). Without > that knowledge it is hard to identify the composed verbs and correctly > separate the hooks from the forks. As I learnt the J primitives and their > parts of speech, suddently tacit didn't seem so hard after all, and now I > find myself using it in preference to explicit for many sentences. > > Having said that I'd be more inclined to promote the use this form than the > one liner string form above. Otherwise things can get messy when dealing with > strings. > quo=: 3 : 0 > Q,(":>y),Q > ) > > Ric > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
