I probably wrote that, back in the day when I was spending significant time on rosettacode.
Generally speaking, I put enough effort into a rosettacode implementation to get it working and stop there. (I sometimes misunderstand the task also, or wind up with an implementation which loses support and thus stops working in later versions). I have no way of judging readability, and find that most readability metrics tend to be more about personal opinion - most code that I have seen which advertises its readability seems objectively worse than the alternatives. That said, feel free to add another implementation. J's conciseness lends itself to posting multiple implementations there and still taking up less space than most of the alternatives. Thanks, -- Raul On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Dabrowski, Andrew John <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, after reading my own description of my fascination with tacit I thought > I sounded like a prick, so I'm trying to use explicit more, and it is nice: > still concise, but easier to parse. > > One thing that irks me is the J solutions posted on Rosetta Code. Here's the > one for Pythagorean triples. > > trips=:3 :0 > 'm n'=. |:(#~ 1 = 2 | +/"1)(#~ >/"1) ,/ ,"0/~ }. i. <. %: y > prim=. (#~ 1 = 2 +./@{. |:) (#~ y >: +/"1)m (-&*: ,. +:@* ,. +&*:) n > /:~ ; <@(,.~ # {. 1:)@(*/~ 1 + y i.@<.@% +/)"1 prim > ) > > > > Impressive, but isn't Rosetta Code a place more for showing off how elegant > your language can be, rather than how incomprehensible? > > > On 11/28/2017 11:45 PM, Rob Hodgkinson wrote: > > Further on this comment Andrew, don’t get bogged down in the topic of tacit, > you can get a lot of benefit form using J in native or explicit form and > leave tacit for later. > > I have been programming in array languages for many years and also confess to > being mesmerised by some of the tacit expressions which I do not find > immediately readable at all, especially when peppered with ASCII like > punctuation. > > Dissect certainly helps, but coding tacit for tacit’s sake is not something I > get hung up about, you can derive huge benefit without it, but it can be nice > to use when it becomes more familiar to you, as people show here when they > create a group of small compact verb trains (or phrases) which together make > a compact solution. > > Rob Hodgkinson > > > > On 29 Nov 2017, at 8:38 am, Andrew Dabrowski > <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > > > As a beginner I find it impossible to parse a moderately sized tacit > expression. No doubt one gets better at this, but like all computer > languages, the one dimensional space it lives in seems to confound any > attempts to represent mathematical ideas directly. > > > > A computer language based on mathematical notation sounds like a cool but > impractical idea. It would to have to be 2 dimensional, as in fact math > notation is. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
