Unfortunately, I didn't abandon my impulse to improve the VBS and wasted several hours generalizing it. At least it has a real work application.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Steven Taylor <tayl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 -- Devon McCormick, CFA ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
