16 ms·
> The question is, if ASCII wouldn't be a requirement, what would be a modern set of primitives, efficient as the tool for thought. I love this question. Movi
by jxy 10y ago
> The question is, if ASCII wouldn't be a requirement, what would be a modern set of primitives, efficient as the tool for thought.
I love this question.
Moving from APL to J is really a step backward in terms of notation. With unicode standard flourishing, we might finally see something that can improve upon the mathematical notation we use and make instructing computers easier. I don't think anyone would be able to answer though… Perhaps one could extend APL symbols to cover all of the J primitives?
- avmich 10y agoI'm trying to find out - is APL set of symbols looks justified today, even with Unicode capabilities? If yes then Iverson created really well thought out set which stood the test of time and we can hope will continue to efficiently serve as a good notation - and might be may be extended. If not - then we have the question of what would be a good notation. References to math notation, which developed over decades and centuries, are good - but sometimes look like not perfect. Iverson was trying to make it better - for example, put the notation in one line, get rid of operation priorities. Is that a success from today's point of view?