On Feb 26, 10:56=A0am, Morten Kromberg <mk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 1:34=A0am, neit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Martin Neitzel)
> wrote:
>
> > > One way of looking at is that J links the items together but in APL2
> > > the link is missing.
>
> > Hi Gosi, isn't this reasoning about as crappy as stating "Pascal
> > has FOR loops but in APL they are missing"?
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
=A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Martin
>
> This is ALL wrong :-)
>
> 1) APL has :For loops
> 2) If you think a function to link things together "helps", write one
> - you don't HAVE to use "stranding"
> 3) Modern APL also has functions for indexing (squad and pick), you
> are not limited to square bracket indexing
>
> I was a SHARP APL user for the first 10 years before moving to APL2, I
> also used to think that the lack of rigor in APL2 was going to rot my
> brain but I have to admit that after writing applications for 15 years
> I have yet to discover a case where I thought "oh boy, if only I'd
> been forced to box and unbox all the time, this would have worked
> better".
>
> I do still feel a bit disturbed about the "space is (sometimes) an
> invisible function" , which makes expressions potentially ambiguous,
> and I guess I can see how this abiguity MIGHT limit the user (it is
> certainly a nightmare for the guy writing the parser). But if "missing
> links" are bad, why does J use space as an even more powerwul ivisible
> thing to construct hooks & forks, "verb trains", whatever they are
> called?
>
> Morten
It would be interesting to hear what the status of APL standards are
towards BA and GA.
After all this difference is the biggest difference between the Apl:s
or at least used to be the major difference.
I know most people would never know the difference nor could not care
less.
|
