>From "The Design of APL": http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/APLDesign.htm
The notational scheme employed for the circular functions must clearly be used with discretion; it could be used to replace all monadic functions by a single dyadic function with an integer left argument to encode each monadic function. ----- Original Message ----- From: Devon McCormick <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, August 4, 2011 10:23 Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] The size of J To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > I counted "+" and "o." both as two because both have monadic and > dyadicforms. Perhaps I should count "o." as 26 (= > >:#i:12), though I'm inclined > to stick with 2 because the dyadic form covers a closely-related > group. I > also ignored the many different kinds of numbers though I > probably should > include them as they are distinct uses of some of the letters. > > Even with generous inclusions, I doubt we're pushing 400. > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Roger Hui <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think you have to do this kind of count > > (and comparisons of counts) with care. > > For example, do you count + as one or two? > > Do you count o. as one or two or 27 (i:12 plus > > 1 for the monad)? > > > > Also, f/ provides two families of functions. > > etc. etc. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Devon McCormick <[email protected]> > > Date: Thursday, August 4, 2011 8:14 > > Subject: [Jprogramming] The size of J > > To: J-programming forum <[email protected]>, > > [email protected] > > > > > Hi - > > > > > > I was reading a section in "Patterns of Software" by Richard P. > > > Gabriel in > > > which he talks about "language size". This book is one of > > > those annoying > > > ones in which he seems to argue for many of the strengths of an > > > APL but > > > never, based on the parts I've read, mentions APL (though he > > > must have known > > > of it). > > > > > > In the essay on "Language Size", he talks about how the initial > > > implementation of Common Lisp > > > "...was relatively small: 772 defined symbols, including > > > function names, > > > macro names, global variables, and constants." Much of > > > this essay builds > > > the case for a small (but not too small) language being better > > > than a large > > > one. He also touches on the usefulness of arrays, in a way. > > > > > > In any case, here's my count for the size of J7: > > > > > > Vocabulary page: (*/10 4 3)-6 > > > Foreign#: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 > > > 13 15 18 128 > > > Foreigns: +/3 20 7 7 6 7 11 5 3 42 1 21 5 > > > 7 6 > > > > > > Total: +/114 151 NB. Basic vocabulary symbols + foreigns. > > > > > > +/114 114 151 NB. monads and dyads - > assumes> > all have both forms, but... > > > 379 > > > _24 NB. not both monadic and dyadic - > above letters > > > on Vocabulary page... > > > _22 NB. not both - letters and numerals > > > > > > NB. Total: > > > +/114 114 151 _24 _22 NB. monads and dyads > > > and foreigns - univalents > > > 333 > > > > > > So, 333 semantic tokens in total, by my count. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
