Sure, and the biggest problem here is the use of globals for arguments.
The verbs themselves can be pure, but all we're really doing is
rearranging the deck chairs.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> At least we agree, I think, on one thing " in exp
At least we agree, I think, on one thing " in explicit programming
[typically] names refer to arguments while in tacit programming they do
not." Thus, is not just a matter of tacit aesthetics, there are some
consequences which might be difficult to evade:
('`u v') =: +/`*:
u@:v f.
+/@:*:
I think you are trying to evade a basic issue, which is that the
distinction between tacit and explicit programming is that in explicit
programming names refer to arguments while in tacit programming they
do not.
Altering the implementation to come up with evasive ways of having
named arguments is
Nice try but when I am wearing my hard-core tacit programmer hat I do not
like to look at blatant ugly explicit definitions which are referring to
arguments. ;) Heck, I do not like the smell of verbs of this kind either,
stinky=. ( , [ , , a. {~ 38 40 52 32 58 39 40 120 41 61 58 32 121
3
I use J all the time for basic data extraction, manipulation and analysis.
A lot of this is documented on the wiki in the NYCJUG meetings;
unfortunately, I've been remiss in recent years in keeping this up-to-date
but there's a lot there.
Also, there are the articles here http://code.jsoftware.com
I have written some apps for managing my photo files and creating and searching
general hard drive and cd archival databases.
For me, these were easier to program in J than in Python. But, much of my
preference comes from working in APL and J for many years.
I have used Python (and other lan
