=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Vector_Volume_23_N=B03?=

On Apr 25, 12:42=A0pm, Ric <r.g.sherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 11:23 pm, AAsk <AA2e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > So much for readability without APL symbols then!!
>
> A little over a year ago that may have been my response too. But now I
> would say that, just like with APL (and any other language that uses a
> previously unknown set of symbols) there is some initial work involved
> in learning the symbols of the language.
>
> Right now you have already learnt the APL symbol set and for that
> reason you find it to be readable. If you'd put the same effort into
> learning the J symbol set you'd probably find it just as readable as
> APL. One thing I did find easier about learning the J symbol set was
> that I already knew which how to type the symbols.

Just like with APL chars then most people only master a handful of the
operations and use them over and over.
Some gradually learn a few more as time goesby.
Unfortunately we do lose most potential users before they learn enough
to get by.

What I really do like about J is the extensive set of labs and demos
that you can take and change slightly to fit your needs.
I was forunate to be forced into J because I could not use the APL
chars.

I have very recently been reintroduced with the APL chars through
Dialog 12 Unicode and I do like it.

Both APL with chars in Unicode and J have a very great opportunity to
grow now.
I think both are as robust and good now as the sales people said they
were decades ago and APL was not ready then.
It was also then a beautiful tool in the hands of experts but a
disaster in the hands of novices that managed to bring the biggest
computers to its knees doing strange worthless stuff.
It should have come with a warning then.
It could and often did brake down with silly warnings and telling
anyone that it was APL even if it was silly programmers fault.