Github Copilot understanding matrix multiply. Getting back to Raul’s question on whether it understands +/ . * as matrix multiply. Github copilot seems to be very context sensitive. At least in the sense that when it starts down a path it remembers the context of the file. So I started with a New file. I put in the comments and the J code under the comment is what Copilot returned:
NB. define a 4 x 4 matrix a =: 4 4 $ i. 16 NB. define a 4 x 4 matrix b =: 4 4 $ i. 16 NB. let c =: a matrix mulply b c =: a +/ .* b So in a fresh file where I define matrices as numbers (where in my previous file I was mixing strings with trying ask for matrix multiplication) Copilot was able to offer the standard J matrix multiply operation. Certainly even a J advanced beginner would see it is easier just to multiply the 2 matrices and not engage Copilot at all. I have to type more characters in comments than the J code that gets generated. For J I loose notation as a tool of thought in working this way. However, I wanted to keep informed on AI code generation since it is all the rage for other languages. As interesting as Copilot is. It seems to excel at verbose languages where explicit loops and block oriented code are used frequently. As much as we here feel the terseness of J is a huge benefit if the language. The marketing of the AI tools seems to indicate what we have already known: That verbosity is added drudgery in a programming language. What is hidden in this particular thread is the code review that was mixed in. Michael Day proffered an improved version of the make palindrome function. Skip Cave provided a palindrome test for integers. This implies a better use for AI. Batch code review my J code (or any code) and suggest improvements. I did a quick search and there wasn’t anything that jumped out at me as fulfilling this particular function. There was one open source project that tied into GitHub pull requests to check code. I pose one more question to the group. Where speed of execution is important, wouldn’t it be better for AI to generate assembly code? It seems to me it is far more simple structurally. The mnemonic statements have a limited funcitonality and only a few modes of parameter use. I would think AI would be a better assembly language code generator than it would for high level languages. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
