4 ms·
Thank you for taking the time to break this down! Your description and summary blocks have started me wondering... has there been much work done on converting
by snapdangle 6y ago
Thank you for taking the time to break this down!
Your description and summary blocks have started me wondering... has there been much work done on converting APL statements to more verbose explanations?
The sigil-to-meaning mapping is likely automatic for seasoned APL programmers but it might make such one liners more effective for evangelist purposes by making them somewhat more self-documenting.
- gandercrews 6y agoit indeed becomes much easier to understand after ~ a year. this thread included some discussion about making APL-family languages easier to read for novices: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20728715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20728715 I'm of the opinion that code should be documented. Short description, arguments, return, purpose etc. However rebinding primitives kindve defeats the purpose after a little familiarity. For example: commute ← {⍵ ⍶ ⍺} ⍝ or commute ← { ⍺ ⍶⍨ ⍵ } will get tedious quickly. Its better to lean into the terseness of the language, rather than attempt to transform it into something it isn't. There has been work done for easing the learning curve, for example https://aplcart.info/ https://aplcart.info/ . Keep in mind aplcart generally targets dyalog, however many of the idioms should work for alternate implementations with possibly some tweaking.