gt;
> -Original Message-
> From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com
> [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of William
> Tanksley, Jr
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 12:45 PM
> To: programm...@jsoftware.com; c...@forums.jsoftware.com
> Subject: Re: [Jpr
: Friday, April 12, 2013 12:45 PM
To: programm...@jsoftware.com; c...@forums.jsoftware.com
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] J Symbols
Skip Cave wrote:
> Raul,
> Who said that ASCII English was ideal?
I do. I know, I like the idea of optionally displaying glyphs -- the
proof-of-concept was convincin
Skip Cave wrote:
> Raul,
> Who said that ASCII English was ideal?
I do. I know, I like the idea of optionally displaying glyphs -- the
proof-of-concept was convincing. But ASCII is a _fundamental_ of
computing right now -- no matter what we might have 5 years later,
it's what we have now.
> Here
Please, can this kind of discussion be moved to "Chat"?
FYI, the differently spaced versions of the Chinese sentence do not quite
have the same meaning. Certainly not the same effect.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Skip Cave wrote:
> Raul,
>
> Who said that ASCII English was ideal?
>
> He
Raul,
Who said that ASCII English was ideal?
Here's the sentence "I do not see why this should be an ideal" in Mandarin.
我不明白為什麼這應該是一個理想的
And here's the same sentence again in Mandarin, with different spacing, but
with the same meaning. .
我不明 白為 什 麼這應該 是 一 個理想的
And here's the same sent
Alan Stebbens wrote:
> If the symbols that are available within J are a closer match to the
symbols used in many applied mathematics disciplines, such as physics,
electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, etc., then the
adoption rate should be much higher than if the practitioners
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Alan Stebbens wrote:
> One of the nice things about using Mathematica, once you get over its cost,
> is how pleasing to the eye are the Notebooks -- precisely because the
> implementors (Wolfram, et. al.) intentionally supported a display that
> matches -- as much
On 04/11/2013 04:37 AM, neville holmes wrote:
When I suggested using colouring as an option under
user control to bring the . and : suffixed symbols down
to a single character, this was to simplify the J
symbol set for a general readership. Simplification
is very important for general acceptance
I imagine a toggle switch which moves me from ascii to a keyboard with only
corresponding glyphs for each J pair. At first I would look at my code,
which I understand. Rather quickly, I imagine, I would read the translation
to new symbols.
Soon, I would be prefer to type them on the glyph keybo
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Skip Cave wrote:
> Ideally a written version of the language should be space-independent.
Id ono ts eew hyt hi ssh oul db ea nid e al.
I do not see why this should be an ideal.
--
Raul
--
For in
This same effect accurately describes how I read different words, for
the first few years I was able to read. It was painstaking.
--
Raul
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:00 AM, William Tanksley, Jr
wrote:
> Ian Clark wrote:
>> William Tanksley, Jr wrote:
>>> Humans don't process color with the same
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:37 AM, neville holmes wrote:
> Unfortunately, APL was sequestered by and developed for
> programmers. J has struck me as going the same way.
> That's why I proposed a device called the formulator
> (see eprints.utas.edu.au/9474 followed by
> archive.vector.org.uk/art1050
I've been finding the discussion of J's symbols very
discouraging and sad, and to me it seemed to be going
off in various unhelpful directions. Of course this
depends on who you want to help.
But Skip Cave has raised the issue that I didn't feel
like butting in with. He wrote "This discussion al
William Tanksley, Jr wrote:
"Circuit" is perhaps a misleading term for what's going on -- but the
Stroop effect is what I was indeed referring to. My point is that when
you attempt to read a token that has both color and textual
information, you can't read both in one glance -- you have to look
onc
I do not see any problem viewing different operations as pictures or text
names.
How that is done is a technical issue.
I am not sure it would help in reading or understanding.
What pictures to use is also open.
What about pictures of bananas, elephants etc?
Or use kanji?
-
William said:
If we'd used prime and double-prime the problem would, I think, still be
there, even though prime etc. are much bigger punctuation.
Skip replies:
That points up another problem with 2-character primitives. When writing J,
one has to be very careful about placing the periods and colon
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:20 AM, William Tanksley, Jr wrote:
>
> We should also admire K's elegance in this domain. I didn't bother
> learning K (it's not open source), but it seems to use overloading to
> allow the same symbol to do different things to different types of
> data. (I'm not certain
Skip Cave wrote:
> 1. The small dots used for modifying the base ASCII characters in J are
> hard to read, and can cause confusion. Making the characters bold can help,
> but only on a computer. When writing J on paper or on a blackboard, the
> small dots still often get lost in the mix. Having to
The small dots used in J symbols are only one of several problems with the
current J symbol set. Here's a short list of the problems with the current
J symbol set.
1. The small dots used for modifying the base ASCII characters in J are
hard to read, and can cause confusion. Making the characters b
Ian Clark wrote:
> William Tanksley, Jr wrote:
>> Humans don't process color with the same circuits that process text
> Doesn't the Stroop Effect
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect suggest they do?
> (Tightly-linked circuits, at least.)
"Circuit" is perhaps a misleading term for what's
I sent this in yesterday, but didn't see it. My apologies if I have
posted it twice. I have made dots bigger by diddling the font. As long
we are talking of new fonts, this is what I reported in 2009:
As we teach ourselves to read without consciously noticing the
punctuation, it initially b
Tracy Harms wrote:
> Making the dots bigger might help a lot. Here's an idea that might be
> relatively simple: have a J tokenizer active during typing, and every
> inflected graphic primary gets changed so that the dots are both enlarged
> and overlaid on the graphic. By "overlaid" I mean the res
Except, of course, if we use utf-8, they're still multiple
"characters" (though, granted, they are single code points and J also
supports utf-16).
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Tracy Harms wrote:
> Making the dots bigger might help a lot. Here's an idea that might be
> relat
Making the dots bigger might help a lot. Here's an idea that might be
relatively simple: have a J tokenizer active during typing, and every
inflected graphic primary gets changed so that the dots are both enlarged
and overlaid on the graphic. By "overlaid" I mean the result is a single
character wi
William Tanksley, Jr wrote:
> Humans don't process color with the same circuits that process text
Doesn't the Stroop Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effectsuggest they do?
(Tightly-linked circuits, at least.)
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:17 PM, William Tanksley, Jr
wrote:
> neville holme
If we want to keep the idea that a single-glyph version of J could be used
as a *written notation* as well as a computer-entered programming language,
coloring the characters will probably not work. I wouldn't want to be
changing pen colors while writing J formulas on paper, or changing chalk
color
neville holmes wrote:
> Provide an option whereby J. primitives can be displayed
> as the base J character but in (say) red, and J: primitives
> can be displayed in (say) green.
Humans don't process color with the same circuits that process text;
so where color reinforces what the text says it's
I'm not as convertible as Skip Cave. I don't think
that overlapping with the APL character set is a very
good idea.
How about this for another approach:
Provide an option whereby J. primitives can be displayed
as the base J character but in (say) red, and J: primitives
can be displayed in (say)
28 matches
Mail list logo
