I totally agree with Roger. There are a number of examples to show how things are related.
This is something that has been happening over the years and more and more examples, demos, labs and helps have been created and they help to explain what the dictionary is saying. It also takes a long time for most people to understand the explanations in the dictionary. Once you do then you appreciate that it is brief and straight to the point. 2010/1/12 Roger Hui <[email protected]>: >> If definitions were written with more redundancy, such as by >> repeating the same definition in another way using different >> words, the chances of erroneous interpretation would be >> lessened. > > If you repeat the same definition in another way using > different words, chances are the two ways would have > different meanings, and the ambiguity would be increased. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Skip Cave <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, January 11, 2010 20:46 > Subject: [Jprogramming] The Ambiguous Dictionary > To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > >> Dan Bron wrote: >> >> the DoJ is written in English, which can be ambiguous (as >> any language can [3]), so the reader's understanding can differ >> from the >> author's intent. >> >> <<>> End quote >> >> Actually, this is an excellent argument for why the concise >> definitions in the J Dictionary and J Vocabulary document are >> sometimes difficult to understand, or may be misunderstood. >> >> Conciseness is a good thing, when all of the words and phrases >> in the definition language mean exactly same thing to everyone >> who reads them. The J programming language is a perfect example >> of a language that means the same thing to everyone that reads >> it. There is no ambiguity in a J program. There may be >> misunderstandings, but no ambiguity. >> >> However as Dan says, English is an ambiguous language. The more >> concise an English definition is, the more likely that an >> ambiguous word could be misunderstood. The fewer the words in >> the definition, the more likely that an alternate but valid >> understanding of a single word in the definition can cause >> misinterpretation of the whole definition. >> >> If definitions were written with more redundancy, such as by >> repeating the same definition in another way using different >> words, the chances of erroneous interpretation would be >> lessened. >> >> Conciseness is good in an unambiguous language, and not so good >> in an ambiguous one. It would probably help most newcomers to J >> to have a more redundant DoJ and Vocabulary >> >> I have always felt the Iverson's penchant for conciseness was a >> huge asset for language design, but a detriment for the >> documentation. >> >> Skip Cave > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Björn Helgason, Verkfræðingur Fornustekkum II 781 Hornafirði Po Box 127,801 Selfoss , t-póst: [email protected] gsm: +3546985532 sími: +3544781286 http://groups.google.com/group/J-Programming Tæknikunnátta höndlar hið flókna, sköpunargáfa er meistari einfaldleikans góður kennari getur stigið á tær án þess að glansinn fari af skónum /|_ .-----------------------------------. ,' .\ / | Með léttri lund verður | ,--' _,' | Dagurinn í dag | / / | Enn betri en gærdagurinn | ( -. | `-----------------------------------' | ) | (\_ _/) (`-. '--.) (='.'=) ♖♘♗♕♔♙ `. )----' (")_(") ☃☠ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
