3 ms·

> They are both used to generate a sequence of consecutive integers, although Go's iota starts at 0 whereas APL's starts at 1. Iota in APL is unary operator th

> They are both used to generate a sequence of consecutive integers, although Go's iota starts at 0 whereas APL's starts at 1. Iota in APL is unary operator that generates a vector of consecutive integers starting at the origin up to and including its operand. Iota in Go is a predeclared identifier that can only be used in constant declarations wherein it auto-increments on every use. The resemblance is superficial at best. > "Ken suggested iota for the counter and, since all three of us (Ken, Robert, Rob) had implemented APL interpreters, it seemed a perfect thing to us." - Rob Pike Maybe we have just have a different view on what "modeled" means, or I am being too literal. To me, "modeling" implies that something is created with another thing in mind, adhering to the same principles. To relate that to the quote, I wouldn't call the process of coming up with a concept and only afterwards finding a name for it from some handwavely similar concept in another context modeling.

nemo1618 8y ago
No, I think your criticism is fair. "Modeled" is not quite accurate, since the term was applied retroactively to functionality that was already implemented. Still, I wouldn't call the resemblance superficial. "iota" in both languages refers to sequences of whole numbers. If "iota" in Go meant "the zero-value for an arbitrary object" or "the smallest non-zero float64," then the two would truly share only a name.
- boomlinde 8y ago
  If there are more than superficial similarities between the two, surely there is a rough analogue for "⍳10" in Go using its iota. Conversely there must be an analogue for "const ( A = iota; B; C )" in APL using its iota. Those are the fundamental uses of these entirely (IMO) different concepts. In the latter case, you can say that "A B C←⍳3" (at least in Dyalog) which is roughly equivalent to a Go constant assignment using iota if you squint a little and disregard the underlying procedure of creating and unpacking an array at run-time vs creating a compile-time constant. In the former case, I'm not aware of any analogue.

nemo1618 8y ago

No, I think your criticism is fair. "Modeled" is not quite accurate, since the term was applied retroactively to functionality that was already implemented. Still, I wouldn't call the resemblance superficial. "iota" in both languages refers to sequences of whole numbers. If "iota" in Go meant "the zero-value for an arbitrary object" or "the smallest non-zero float64," then the two would truly share only a name.

boomlinde 8y ago
If there are more than superficial similarities between the two, surely there is a rough analogue for "⍳10" in Go using its iota. Conversely there must be an analogue for "const ( A = iota; B; C )" in APL using its iota. Those are the fundamental uses of these entirely (IMO) different concepts. In the latter case, you can say that "A B C←⍳3" (at least in Dyalog) which is roughly equivalent to a Go constant assignment using iota if you squint a little and disregard the underlying procedure of creating and unpacking an array at run-time vs creating a compile-time constant. In the former case, I'm not aware of any analogue.