On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Tracy Harms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > refine their code with these techniques. In the simple examples I've > seen, everything looks just like J to me. Then a threshold is crossed > where it's too different for me to see in terms of J. Oh, well. Thanks > again for helping me see some of the particulars which make up these > differences.
It seems to me that any small example could be implemented easily but large examples would either rapidly devolve into scalar oriented code and be quite inefficient, or involve a complete change in architecture where you implement something that accomplishes the same purpose but without using Haskell's implicit mechanisms. (This is why the small examples tend to be easy -- extracting their purpose and ignoring their mechanisms is generally not too hard.) Anyways, "a gentle introduction to haskell" seems to do a good job of covering the underlying assumptions implicit in the notation. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
