5 ms·

Why would you expect a k.c? This is b. There's a b.c.

by icen 8y ago

tluyben2 8y ago
It's referenced in the Makefile.
- theoh 8y ago
  On a possibly unhelpful tangent, I'm expecting it to look something like this: https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Essays/Incunabulum https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Essays/Incunabulum
  - ColanR 8y ago
    It sure does: http://kparc.com/b/b.c http://kparc.com/b/b.c
    - theoh 8y ago
      I'm so tempted to just respond with "wanker", though I know HN norms don't allow that. Either the code is for human consumption (in which case, fulfil that goal) or you're writing demoscene assembler which displays virtuosity without any positive impact on society.
      - ColanR 8y ago
        I think the problem is, we intuitively estimate the readability of code based on the space it takes up, when we should take into account the information density. That code is extremely readable - if you assume it will take just as long to understand as the entirety of the GCC compiler: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc
        avmich 8y ago
        Read "A programming language", where APL came from - https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Kenneth-Iverson/dp/0471430145 https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Kenneth-Iverson/... - you might get more understanding why it is the way it is. It is the mathematical notation, put into, as Dijkstra expressed, "technologies of the past", completed (to be Turing-complete) and made executable. At least, I think, this is the basic idea.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        theoh 8y ago
        The code I linked to was written in one session (probably) and it really isn't comparable to GCC in complexity. It's an interpreter, but one where the author has made no attempt to make the process of interpretation legible. He's too busy "achieving" things with his code. I guess there should be a niche for people like that, but the APL/post-APL community seems to think that Arthur has special computer science knowledge that can be best (or only) expressed in this form. We all know that's bullshit.
      - 3xblah 8y ago
        Companies pay large licensing fees to use this software. There must be some "positive impact" on their business.
- nemo1618 8y ago
  k is probably omitted because it's not open-source.

Why would you expect a k.c? This is b. There's a b.c.

by icen 8y ago

Why would you expect a k.c? This is b. There's a b.c.

tluyben2 8y ago

It's referenced in the Makefile.

theoh 8y ago
On a possibly unhelpful tangent, I'm expecting it to look something like this: https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Essays/Incunabulum https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Essays/Incunabulum
- ColanR 8y ago
  It sure does: http://kparc.com/b/b.c http://kparc.com/b/b.c
  - theoh 8y ago
    I'm so tempted to just respond with "wanker", though I know HN norms don't allow that. Either the code is for human consumption (in which case, fulfil that goal) or you're writing demoscene assembler which displays virtuosity without any positive impact on society.
    - ColanR 8y ago
      I think the problem is, we intuitively estimate the readability of code based on the space it takes up, when we should take into account the information density. That code is extremely readable - if you assume it will take just as long to understand as the entirety of the GCC compiler: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc
      - avmich 8y ago
        Read "A programming language", where APL came from - https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Kenneth-Iverson/dp/0471430145 https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Kenneth-Iverson/... - you might get more understanding why it is the way it is. It is the mathematical notation, put into, as Dijkstra expressed, "technologies of the past", completed (to be Turing-complete) and made executable. At least, I think, this is the basic idea.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - theoh 8y ago
        The code I linked to was written in one session (probably) and it really isn't comparable to GCC in complexity. It's an interpreter, but one where the author has made no attempt to make the process of interpretation legible. He's too busy "achieving" things with his code. I guess there should be a niche for people like that, but the APL/post-APL community seems to think that Arthur has special computer science knowledge that can be best (or only) expressed in this form. We all know that's bullshit.
    - 3xblah 8y ago
      Companies pay large licensing fees to use this software. There must be some "positive impact" on their business.
nemo1618 8y ago
k is probably omitted because it's not open-source.