3 ms·

I really like APL but I cannot imagine myself depending on a closed source tool-chain. I've heard that the GNU APL is order of magnitude slower than Dyalog APL,

I really like APL but I cannot imagine myself depending on a closed source tool-chain. I've heard that the GNU APL is order of magnitude slower than Dyalog APL, but I can't find a benchmark to confirm that.

mlochbaum 5y ago
Not to claim any are better than Dyalog, but there are options: https://aplwiki.com/wiki/List_of_open-source_array_languages https://aplwiki.com/wiki/List_of_open-source_array_languages . I think dzaima/APL and April are both all right. Personally, I think GNU is not a good design: for example it has no lexical scoping or even control structures, essentially requiring you to use goto for program control. BQN is my own effort and I would say it has more serious ambitions than these. If you're not attached to the APL language specifically, I'd take a look.
- andrewnc 5y ago
  I check back in on your BQN project every few months. I am an anxious potential user and love the work you do.
- JacobiX 5y ago
  Thank you for the comment, I wasn’t aware of the BQN project, sounds very interesting to me.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
moonchild 5y ago
Yes, GNU APL is quite slow. There was some primitive implemented in GNU APL (as part of the interpreter, in c). A pure-APL implementation running on dyalog outperformed it by a considerable margin. If you're looking for a performance, opensource APL, try j. Though if performance is not a priority then, as the sibling says, dzaima/apl or april should be more than adequate.
- moonchild 5y ago
  NB. I believe the primitive implemented Knuth's dancing links algorithm. NB. NARS is also very decent, though it only runs on windows.