I am too much of a beginner in APL world to have an authoritative say. But my feeling is that some of the K quirks are driven more by actual implementation/optimization constraints than academic thought. Also K keeps more of the C feel (and Lisp to a lesser extent). Arthur is an incredibly gifted C programmer as well.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Greg Borota <[email protected]> wrote: > > 3) I am thinking Arthur Whitney's K might help to some extend define a > more > > reduced J core. J Dictionary does defines a J core, but maybe things > could > > be reduced some more to get one going quicker. See > > http://kparc.com/document/k.txt > > That's an interesting idea, but would take some serious thought. > > K is a great environment, but some of the decisions are dubious. > > For example, why does K use & for and instead of *? > > In the context of J, we are concerned about identity operations (or, > more generally: concepts of groups and semigroups, including monoids), > and: > > >./'' > __ > */'' > 1 > *./'' > 1 > > Note also that J's *&.-. is a linear (Bayesian) implementation of > logical OR. Does that make it worth including in "minimal J"? > > Anyways... thought needed... > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
