4 ms·
APL's greatest contribution is its semantics, not its syntax. (Some parts of the syntax are brilliant and would be awesome if adopted by modern languages. Othe
by beagle3 5y ago
APL's greatest contribution is its semantics, not its syntax.
(Some parts of the syntax are brilliant and would be awesome if adopted by modern languages. Others ..... not so much).
- throwaway17_17 5y agoWhich pieces of APL would you see fitting in a modern language? Simply curious about preferences of people who already enjoy the semantics and would find the APL syntax ideal.
- Wezl 5y ago(not parent) personally I would like to see [trains](https://aplwiki.com/wiki/Tacit_programming#Trains https://aplwiki.com/wiki/Tacit_programming#Trains) in more languages, though the way they are implemented in APL is pretty spotty (e.g. the length of a train changes its semantics)
- beagle3 5y agoI think adopting the “each” syntax would help every language that has containers - including Python and C# It is semantically more like “map” than “foreach”, but syntactically emphasized the applied function rather than the fact that it is applied to the container - and that shows especially when nested - f””x or f”[2]x means “apply at depth two”. Compare that to a nested map/foreach There are other syntax features I like, but most of them do interact with semantics (some more, some less). This one is useful in any language.