We think very differently, I think. Personally, while I have a great respect for what we can do with computers, I think it's a mistake to think solely in terms of what they make easier. (Designs always involve tradeoffs, and making one thing easy makes another thing harder. People will often favor a particular tradeoff, but other people will have conflicting needs.)
In this particular case, note that f has a different definition from g. They are similar definitions, but they are not identical. You see them as the same because you have a particular mental model about how they are to be used. But usefulness is something we impose on the definition, on the implementation, and so on. And *that* I think, is the most important message here. You cannot use computers if you do not understand this. Thanks, -- Raul P.S. (f -: g) i. 3 0 On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Linda Alvord <lindaalv...@verizon.net>wrote: > I've been reading about tacit vs. explicit definitions. For some users of > J , it seems more natural to use x and y when using a right to left > definition. For many others your style is more easily used. However, f > and g do the same thing. > > So, writing in either style is OK. However it there were a way to see > style f translated into either style f* or f^ could be use or some other > way of distinguishing them. You would be able to see "your f " in either > style. It would be like having an English or French version of the same > sentence. > > But in a similar fashion I could view "my g " in either g* or g^ > > There would never be a need to enter f or g alone since you would pick > the one you wanted. > > Does this seem any clearer? > > Linda > > -----Original Message----- > From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com > [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Raul Miller > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:09 AM > To: Programming forum > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] J in 5 minutes > > Why would f alone provide no definition? I'm having trouble understanding > what you are driving at? > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Linda Alvord > <lindaalv...@verizon.net>wrote: > > > In my more perfect world, Raul could write f , and I could write g . > > > > f=: <./ + i.@(+ *)@-~ > > > > g=: 13 :'x(<./+[:([: i. (+*))-~) y' > > > > > > However, by some coding system, he could look at both "dialects". > > > > f1=: <./ + i.@(+ *)@-~ > > f2=: <./ + [: ([: i. (+ *)) -~ > > > > and so could I: > > > > g1=: <./ + i.@(+ *)@-~ > > g2=: <./ + [: ([: i. (+ *)) -~ > > > > but f alone would provide no definition. > > > > Linda > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com > > [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Don Kelly > > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:45 AM > > To: programm...@jsoftware.com > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] J in 5 minutes > > > > Good point - however both tacit and explicit follow certain rules of > > the language- > > I would put this in terms of a sermon , rather than a dialect- > > where the preacher deals directly to the point vs one who takes a > > detailed (often circuitive) route to get to the point. Same language- > > but one approach goes step by step (often repeatedly) while the other > > goes more directly. > > Put it this way > > MAd (Michigan Algerithmic Decoder- the first language I learned), > > Fortran (originally a weak version of MAD) , Basic, Turbo Basic (Basic > > with muscle ) are dialects of a language. Pascal, C C++ etc are > > dialects of a different language. APl, J and related "languages" are > > also dialects of some common language . > > These languages, in part, borrow from each other (and dialect borrow- > > i.e Fortran borrowed from MAD but left Alfred E. Neuman out of error > > messages starting with "this is mad" > > > > Whatever, too long a day, and too much wine "in Vino excreta taurus" > > > > Don > > > > . > > > > > > On 13/03/2014 8:54 PM, robert therriault wrote: > > > Well, tacit and explicit could be thought of as dialects, couldn't > they? > > > > > > Cheers, bob > > > > > > On Mar 13, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Don Kelly <d...@shaw.ca> wrote: > > > > > >> At least J doesn't have dialects. > > >> > > >> Don > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
