4 ms·
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
by 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 agoRead "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 agoThe 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.