Ironically, a good way to improve J documentation would be to write some (perhaps in blog posts?) and then go through a revision process with an audience on that.
That said, the best J documentation seems to be "off hand" -- tutorials that focus on some application and cover just enough of J for it to be useful for that purpose. Having something concrete to focus on is incredibly illuminating, and since J borrows deeply from the traditions of mathematics its concepts often need just a little explanation when in a context where the student has some idea of the concrete subject being discussed. At least, that's my opinion, -- Raul On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Alex Giannakopoulos <aeg...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > I agree that all this needs more and *clear* and *visible* explanation! > It was the first question I asked, and in the two+ years (on-and-off) that > I have been mucking around with J I have seen asked on this forum umpteen > times. > I have also seen it debated at length (and breadth and depth). By > experienced users, experts and newbies alike. Unfortunately these > discussions get buried in the (not easily searchable) list archives and the > question keeps popping up, kind of like Nosferatu. > > Maybe we need a REALLY prominent page explaining it once and for all. > I must add that for someone coming from another language, the idea of > trains is massively alien (and a pain until you see their utility). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
