4 ms·

> I think the difficulty of this is overstated. I have my degree in mathematics and I've used my fair share of symbols. It's been a consistent finding in artic

> I think the difficulty of this is overstated. I have my degree in mathematics and I've used my fair share of symbols. It's been a consistent finding in articles, books, classes and peer conversations that symbols are not that optimal. Inventing new symbols, or overusing them is frowned upon because they don't really make things easier to understand and can sometimes be a cause of confusion. > It's a little disingenuous to claim that something you've never tried to do is too hard and has no value. I'm not saying "it has no value", I'm saying that I've never seen a good argument to actually invest time in them. As I explained, other languages have clear value propositions. In J/K/Q/APL , the value proposition tends to be a vague "I like it" from people who like it. > Lol, that is literally the point of them Yes, 2_&{&/x!/:2_!x}'!R is very understandable. > I've been really enjoying https://www.arraycast.com/ https://www.arraycast.com/ Offtopic, but I really dislike how so many information out there is the inaccesible format that is "podcasts".

schwartzworld 4y ago
> Yes, 2_&{&/x!/:2_!x}'!R is very understandable. Just as much so as սուրճ or コーヒー or קפה. > Offtopic, but I really dislike how so many information out there is the inaccesible format that is "podcasts". I can't think of a better format for what they are trying to do with the ArrayCast. It's not teaching people array programming, just a conversation between people who are proficient in it. What do you think makes podcasts inaccessible? For example, I often recommend https://soundcloud.com/lambda-cast https://soundcloud.com/lambda-cast to developers looking to understand functional programming. The conversational approach works well because some of the panelists are being taught these concepts for the first time and they ask great questions. There are plenty of books and articles on the subject, but conversational audio is a wonderful supplement.
- gjulianm 4y ago
  > Just as much so as սուրճ or コーヒー or קפה. But far less than the equivalent code in, say, Python, or C, or any other language. That's the point. > What do you think makes podcasts inaccessible? Lack of visible, searchable structure and the requirement of audio (in those that don't have transcripts, which is a lot of them) to get the information.
  - bobterryo 4y ago
    All episodes of the Arraycast have both transcripts and extensive show notes for background information for those who may not be array programmers. The challenge of delivering knowledge via an audio format is real, but use of transcripts makes it much more accessible.
    - gjulianm 4y ago
      Indeed, this podcast seems to do a decent job. It was more an off topic remark about how inaccesible podcasts usually are for actually finding information.
rak1507 4y ago
2_&{&/x!/:2_!x}'!R is very understandable to someone who knows K. (Or at least, the idea is, do you know what dialect it uses? Where's the code from?) The (roughly) equivalent python is filter(lambda x:all(x%i>0 for i in range(2,x)),range(2,R)) - is this really that much better? (yes if you know python, no if you know k)
- gjulianm 4y ago
  > (Or at least, the idea is, do you know what dialect it uses? Where's the code from?) From Wikipedia page of K programming language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language) > filter(lambda x:all(x%i>0 for i in range(2,x)),range(2,R)) - is this really that much better? You don't need to know Python. Filter is probably doing a filter, "lambda x: ... " looks like a lambda function, for looks like a loop... I am 100% sure that, without any language knowledge, the Python version is far more easy to understand.
  - rak1507 4y ago
    Ah, that code was added to the wiki page in 2006 apparently. A modern version is basically the same anyway. I will (maybe) agree that the python is easier to understand without any language knowledge - but that does not mean the K is not understandable. If you know K, it is understandable, and knowing a language seems like a pretty low bar for understanding it.
    - gjulianm 4y ago
      I mean, by the same measure, spaghetti code is not spaghetti code if it makes sense in your head. But we all understand that there are certain qualities of code that make it “spaghetti” or not independently of your understanding of it. Similarly there are features of languages (such as terseness, use of symbols, dependency on context) that makes them harder to read
  - gitonthescene 4y ago
    If you don’t know a language but are hoping to read it, for what purpose are you intending to read it? Is it a casual understanding? If you’re talking about maintaining the code it’s probably better to stipulate that people already know the language. If you want to maintain code in a language you don’t know, I’m not sure you’d be a great hire.

schwartzworld 4y ago

> Yes, 2_&{&/x!/:2_!x}'!R is very understandable. Just as much so as սուրճ or コーヒー or קפה. > Offtopic, but I really dislike how so many information out there is the inaccesible format that is "podcasts". I can't think of a better format for what they are trying to do with the ArrayCast. It's not teaching people array programming, just a conversation between people who are proficient in it. What do you think makes podcasts inaccessible? For example, I often recommend https://soundcloud.com/lambda-cast https://soundcloud.com/lambda-cast to developers looking to understand functional programming. The conversational approach works well because some of the panelists are being taught these concepts for the first time and they ask great questions. There are plenty of books and articles on the subject, but conversational audio is a wonderful supplement.

gjulianm 4y ago
> Just as much so as սուրճ or コーヒー or קפה. But far less than the equivalent code in, say, Python, or C, or any other language. That's the point. > What do you think makes podcasts inaccessible? Lack of visible, searchable structure and the requirement of audio (in those that don't have transcripts, which is a lot of them) to get the information.
- bobterryo 4y ago
  All episodes of the Arraycast have both transcripts and extensive show notes for background information for those who may not be array programmers. The challenge of delivering knowledge via an audio format is real, but use of transcripts makes it much more accessible.
  - gjulianm 4y ago
    Indeed, this podcast seems to do a decent job. It was more an off topic remark about how inaccesible podcasts usually are for actually finding information.

rak1507 4y ago

2_&{&/x!/:2_!x}'!R is very understandable to someone who knows K. (Or at least, the idea is, do you know what dialect it uses? Where's the code from?) The (roughly) equivalent python is filter(lambda x:all(x%i>0 for i in range(2,x)),range(2,R)) - is this really that much better? (yes if you know python, no if you know k)

gjulianm 4y ago
> (Or at least, the idea is, do you know what dialect it uses? Where's the code from?) From Wikipedia page of K programming language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language) > filter(lambda x:all(x%i>0 for i in range(2,x)),range(2,R)) - is this really that much better? You don't need to know Python. Filter is probably doing a filter, "lambda x: ... " looks like a lambda function, for looks like a loop... I am 100% sure that, without any language knowledge, the Python version is far more easy to understand.
- rak1507 4y ago
  Ah, that code was added to the wiki page in 2006 apparently. A modern version is basically the same anyway. I will (maybe) agree that the python is easier to understand without any language knowledge - but that does not mean the K is not understandable. If you know K, it is understandable, and knowing a language seems like a pretty low bar for understanding it.
  - gjulianm 4y ago
    I mean, by the same measure, spaghetti code is not spaghetti code if it makes sense in your head. But we all understand that there are certain qualities of code that make it “spaghetti” or not independently of your understanding of it. Similarly there are features of languages (such as terseness, use of symbols, dependency on context) that makes them harder to read
- gitonthescene 4y ago
  If you don’t know a language but are hoping to read it, for what purpose are you intending to read it? Is it a casual understanding? If you’re talking about maintaining the code it’s probably better to stipulate that people already know the language. If you want to maintain code in a language you don’t know, I’m not sure you’d be a great hire.