4 ms·

Thus the source code is essentially compressed code and, as we know, compression makes thing more random hence more noise-like. This is wrong. k programs aren'

by kick 7y ago

Thus the source code is essentially compressed code and, as we know, compression makes thing more random hence more noise-like. This is wrong. k programs aren't really random at all. It's not even that complicated; it has less than thirty primitives. It's a notation for representing ideas, and it excels at that. Dyalog APL is similarly terse, although less so, and the goal of it isn't to be terse. This criticism still gets thrown at it, and is representative of an unwillingness to accept something that mathematics has known for years: notation isn't golfing, it's a convenient way to express thought.

magicalhippo 7y ago
> This is wrong. k programs aren't really random at all. The k source code posted around here are certainly more random than a similar byte count of say Java code. Try zipping 1000 bytes of either. > notation isn't golfing, it's a convenient way to express thought Sure. But up to a point. And it seems to go beyond pure notation. Check out the interpreter posted here: https://bitbucket.org/ngn/k/ https://bitbucket.org/ngn/k/ It _requires_ a readme file to explain the file names. That's not convenient by any sensible measure. And the same goes for variable and function names. Take the xml parser[1], "xd". How would a new user know what this did without checking the definition? [1]: https://a.kx.com/a/k/examples/xml.k https://a.kx.com/a/k/examples/xml.k
- kick 7y ago
  It doesn't "require" a README file to explain anything. cc has a man page; when was the last time you checked it? For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22009876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22009876 How would a new user know what this did without checking the definition? Why would somebody want to know what it does without checking the definition? The definition isn't complex, and the program can be read and kept in your head in the span of a minute. It's also well-commented.

by kick 7y ago

magicalhippo 7y ago

> This is wrong. k programs aren't really random at all. The k source code posted around here are certainly more random than a similar byte count of say Java code. Try zipping 1000 bytes of either. > notation isn't golfing, it's a convenient way to express thought Sure. But up to a point. And it seems to go beyond pure notation. Check out the interpreter posted here: https://bitbucket.org/ngn/k/ https://bitbucket.org/ngn/k/ It _requires_ a readme file to explain the file names. That's not convenient by any sensible measure. And the same goes for variable and function names. Take the xml parser[1], "xd". How would a new user know what this did without checking the definition? [1]: https://a.kx.com/a/k/examples/xml.k https://a.kx.com/a/k/examples/xml.k

kick 7y ago
It doesn't "require" a README file to explain anything. cc has a man page; when was the last time you checked it? For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22009876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22009876 How would a new user know what this did without checking the definition? Why would somebody want to know what it does without checking the definition? The definition isn't complex, and the program can be read and kept in your head in the span of a minute. It's also well-commented.