4 ms·

Going back to the original comment, the statement was that any experienced engineer could learn a language in a day. At risk of gatekeeping, I'd argue that by d

Going back to the original comment, the statement was that any experienced engineer could learn a language in a day. At risk of gatekeeping, I'd argue that by definition any experienced engineer would have some experience with an array based language like APL or MATLAB so that no, J does not qualify as a different paradigm.

goatlover 5y ago
I guess it depends on how much past experience they had with an array-based, stack-based, logic-based, pure functional or lisp family language, and how long ago that was. I can believe an experienced engineer can learn the basics of any language in a day. But being proficient and idiomatic is another matter.
gcanyon 5y ago
The implication of the original comment was that any C-style language engineer could learn any C-style language in a day. I'd even argue that point, but it definitely doesn't get you J in a day, except that an supports most C-style syntax. So you can program in J like a C-programmer in a day. You definitely can't program like a J-programmer. And to say a competent engineer would already have array-language experience sidesteps the point.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  The original comment said nothing about C-style languages. That must be something you read into their comment. Learning J is like learning Perl or regular expressions. Nobody really wants to engage in such an activity, but people do what they need to do. Depending on their level of experience, a person who understands imperative and declarative paradigms along with the language's execution model can absolutely learn J within a day, because it only differs in syntax from the existing languages.
  - gcanyon 5y ago
    "This is at least part of the reason that reasonably strong engineers can learn a new programming language in under a day. The paradigms just aren’t that different." This literally says "the paradigms aren't that different." So if you accept that C and J are different paradigms, then because the paradigms aren't that different, a C programmer could pick up J in a day. What it doesn't say is that truly different paradigms take more than a day to learn competent programmers already understand all different paradigms. Perl is C-like. As I said elsewhere, J supports C-style syntax, so sure you can program J in C-style in a day. But that's not J. This is J: for. }.z do. b=. -. (i.n) e."1 ,. z +"1 _ ((-i.){:$z) */ _1 0 1 z=. ((+/"1 b)#z),.n|I.,b end. To a J programmer, that's not just clear, it's obvious. I'd like to meet the C-programmer who can learn to write and read that in a day. And also as I responded elsewhere, this is a blub language discussion: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      You are the only person who is talking about C. It is a leap to go from "experienced programmer" to "that means C-only programmer". You are using the term "programming paradigm" incorrectly. C is not a programming paradigm. The paradigm of C is that it is an imperative procedural language. In the strictest sense it is a functional language, since functions are first class citizens, but it is not really a functional language as used in practice, such as when discussing function application.
      - gcanyon 5y ago
        I'm using "C-style language" as a metaphor for "imperative procedural language". I'm not the first to do so.
        IncRnd 5y ago
        Clearly, C is not a functional, array language. Nobody said it is. What is your point?
        5y ago
- hnfong 5y ago
  Is Javascript a C-style language? Because even though the syntax looks superficially similar, REAL Javascript programmers apparently `npm install left-pad` instead of writing their own. The C programmer in me feels abhorrent.

goatlover 5y ago

I guess it depends on how much past experience they had with an array-based, stack-based, logic-based, pure functional or lisp family language, and how long ago that was. I can believe an experienced engineer can learn the basics of any language in a day. But being proficient and idiomatic is another matter.

gcanyon 5y ago

The implication of the original comment was that any C-style language engineer could learn any C-style language in a day. I'd even argue that point, but it definitely doesn't get you J in a day, except that an supports most C-style syntax. So you can program in J like a C-programmer in a day. You definitely can't program like a J-programmer. And to say a competent engineer would already have array-language experience sidesteps the point.

IncRnd 5y ago
The original comment said nothing about C-style languages. That must be something you read into their comment. Learning J is like learning Perl or regular expressions. Nobody really wants to engage in such an activity, but people do what they need to do. Depending on their level of experience, a person who understands imperative and declarative paradigms along with the language's execution model can absolutely learn J within a day, because it only differs in syntax from the existing languages.
- gcanyon 5y ago
  "This is at least part of the reason that reasonably strong engineers can learn a new programming language in under a day. The paradigms just aren’t that different." This literally says "the paradigms aren't that different." So if you accept that C and J are different paradigms, then because the paradigms aren't that different, a C programmer could pick up J in a day. What it doesn't say is that truly different paradigms take more than a day to learn competent programmers already understand all different paradigms. Perl is C-like. As I said elsewhere, J supports C-style syntax, so sure you can program J in C-style in a day. But that's not J. This is J: for. }.z do. b=. -. (i.n) e."1 ,. z +"1 _ ((-i.){:$z) */ _1 0 1 z=. ((+/"1 b)#z),.n|I.,b end. To a J programmer, that's not just clear, it's obvious. I'd like to meet the C-programmer who can learn to write and read that in a day. And also as I responded elsewhere, this is a blub language discussion: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    You are the only person who is talking about C. It is a leap to go from "experienced programmer" to "that means C-only programmer". You are using the term "programming paradigm" incorrectly. C is not a programming paradigm. The paradigm of C is that it is an imperative procedural language. In the strictest sense it is a functional language, since functions are first class citizens, but it is not really a functional language as used in practice, such as when discussing function application.
    - gcanyon 5y ago
      I'm using "C-style language" as a metaphor for "imperative procedural language". I'm not the first to do so.
      - IncRnd 5y ago
        Clearly, C is not a functional, array language. Nobody said it is. What is your point?
        5y ago
hnfong 5y ago
Is Javascript a C-style language? Because even though the syntax looks superficially similar, REAL Javascript programmers apparently `npm install left-pad` instead of writing their own. The C programmer in me feels abhorrent.