even in humble much maligned vb this could be expressed better. A recursive definition would be better. You do find lots of horrible examples in the scripty type languages.
re: interpreted V's compiled: APL isn't as reliant on compilation because it doesn't have to interpret very often (i.e. whole dataset at a time operators as a default) ... and you could do the interpretation aspect in parallel if that became onerous. i.e. could the interpreter stay ahead of the data set operators? Probably. So no real impact from what people normally call the bane of an interpreted language. ... also, there's the coming at problems from a different perspective which your average non APL language obfuscates. best, -Steven On 5 April 2012 17:33, Joey K Tuttle <j...@qued.com> wrote: > Charming exposition. Thanks for sharing it! > > On 2012/04/05 08:09 , Devon McCormick wrote: > > Yes - but not necessarily funny ones: moot.aplwiki.com/BeyondCompilation. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
