5 ms·

I welcome new APL-class languages. BQN seems promising as, apparently, only a few glyphs remain, see [1]. For example there is a special minus sign for use in n

I welcome new APL-class languages. BQN seems promising as, apparently, only a few glyphs remain, see [1]. For example there is a special minus sign for use in numbers (why can't this be inferred?) and there are symbols for infinity and Pi, which are identifiers in other languages. On the other hand, characters like / and \ don't seem to be used. As I consider the glyph stuff to be a detraction, my question is: why insist on the glyphs? Is the ideal of writing functions on a single line worth stopping the wider public from using this? I for one won't be trying this out, I'll scan the docs for just the ideas instead. [1] https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/doc/syntax.html#special-glyphs https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/doc/syntax.html#special-glyp... [Edit: https://bqnpad.mechanize.systems/ https://bqnpad.mechanize.systems/ shows there are still a lot of symbols. The question remains, why not use keywords or compositions like =/= instead?]

rscho 4y ago
There's J if you don't want glyphs
dzaima 4y ago
The syntax/"Special glyphs" page shows glyphs that specifically aren't builtins (i.e. functions & modifiers, which include your regular +-÷×, among many others). As for why use glyphs - setting up the keyboard & learning the glyphs is largely a one-time cost, but reading & writing digraphs/trigraphs or words is an ongoing one. Ligature fonts are an option, but then you're back at having to learn glyphs, now in addition to learning the raw ASCII to write (and also read in places that don't support custom fonts). Names/identifiers have the problem of where you draw the line - addition/multiplication/comparison/etc should really have their own glyphs, but, given that BQN is an array language, many array operations are equally as much, or more, deserving of having glyphs too. It's unfortunate that the slightly steeper learning slope can drive people away, but I believe the glyphs are enough of a benefit in the long run that going with them is a valid option even if that means reduced adoption.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  I think they were asking about using terse symbols in general, as opposed to words in English (or some other language) like most other programming languages.

rscho 4y ago

There's J if you don't want glyphs

dzaima 4y ago

The syntax/"Special glyphs" page shows glyphs that specifically aren't builtins (i.e. functions & modifiers, which include your regular +-÷×, among many others). As for why use glyphs - setting up the keyboard & learning the glyphs is largely a one-time cost, but reading & writing digraphs/trigraphs or words is an ongoing one. Ligature fonts are an option, but then you're back at having to learn glyphs, now in addition to learning the raw ASCII to write (and also read in places that don't support custom fonts). Names/identifiers have the problem of where you draw the line - addition/multiplication/comparison/etc should really have their own glyphs, but, given that BQN is an array language, many array operations are equally as much, or more, deserving of having glyphs too. It's unfortunate that the slightly steeper learning slope can drive people away, but I believe the glyphs are enough of a benefit in the long run that going with them is a valid option even if that means reduced adoption.

nerdponx 4y ago
I think they were asking about using terse symbols in general, as opposed to words in English (or some other language) like most other programming languages.