7 ms·

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 m

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.

gjulianm 4y ago
Unless you have perfect memory and perfect recall, it’s very possible you’ll forget what a certain symbol meant. Specially if you read the code at a time you’re not being specially bright (say, Friday noon after an stressful week). Much harder to forget what the word “filter” means. Also much easier to recognize words than symbols where differences might be small.
- rak1507 4y ago
  It's really unlikely (imo impossible) you'll forget what a symbol means in APL or K etc if you program in it reasonably often. There aren't many symbols, and most of them are used pretty frequently. If you do forget, there's plenty of resources to jog your memory though. The Dyalog RIDE has a language bar at the top, and hovering over a symbol gives a brief description with examples. https://janiczek.github.io/tryapl-elm/ https://janiczek.github.io/tryapl-elm/ replicates this if you want to see for yourself. I disagree that it's easier to recognise words than symbols if there are small differences, the symbols are distinctive anyway so that's not really a real problem.
  - gjulianm 4y ago
    > It's really unlikely (imo impossible) you'll forget what a symbol means in APL or K etc if you program in it reasonably often. Well, of course, if you’re always practicing the same thing you’re unlikely to forget it. That’s not always the case, though. > the symbols are distinctive anyway so that's not really a real problem. Really? From that toolbar alone I’m seeing empty circle vs slightly smaller empty circle, a lot of symbols with/without a dash or umlaut, dot and comma… seems pretty easy to get a lot of those confused or misread.
    - rak1507 4y ago
      It seems like it might be easy to confuse things, but from experience, it isn't. I feel like in general, you're making a lot of (fairly reasonable) assumptions about what programming in an array language is like, but they aren't really the case (as lots of other people have tried to explain). Without really trying it out, I'm not sure how someone could convince you otherwise, so there's a bit of an impasse. I think you should listen to what people are saying and have said in the past though (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33640275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33640275, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22524918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22524918) and trust that for some people who do learn array languages, they do find it useful + productive, and a lot of the things you've raised are not issues in practice.
      - gjulianm 4y ago
        I have listened and to me it always seems to come down to “you make reasonable points but it’s not a problem for me so it’s not a problem”. And I think there’s a lot of implicit bias when people who like APL say it’s perfectly readable. Given how readability hits you in the face first thing when you see APL and how it’s not a widely used language, only the people enthusiastic about it and willing to overlook the readability issues will end up learning it. Of course they don’t find issues in practice, if they had issues with that they’d have probably abandoned the language quickly. > and trust that for some people who do learn array languages, they do find it useful + productive, and a lot of the things you've raised are not issues in practice. I’m not saying it isn’t useful or productive. That’s not the discussion. The point is that they’re languages that they’re hard to use and hard to read. I don’t see how it’s such a controversial point. For example, I like LaTeX a lot. I’ve done quite a lot of things with it, it’s been very useful and I’ve been very productive with it. I have no problem reading that code. But the fact that I have no problems doesn’t mean there aren’t actual problems with LaTeX. LaTeX will always be hard to read and quite a bit messy no matter how used I get to it.
        rak1507 4y ago
        Yes - the first thing you notice when you see APL is 'this looks weird'. Most people then assume 'this is complicated, hard to read, and hard to use', and move on with their lives. Some people decide to learn it anyway, and quickly (within under a day) realise it is actually simple, readable, and easy to use! It's not like some people are magically born with the ability to read APL (or anything else), and learning it isn't a matter of 'overlooking the readability issues', but rather realising the 'readability issues' are a false assumption. There's not 'bias', there's just experience. That is why "they’re hard to use and hard to read" is 'controversial', because it is just not true.

gjulianm 4y ago

Unless you have perfect memory and perfect recall, it’s very possible you’ll forget what a certain symbol meant. Specially if you read the code at a time you’re not being specially bright (say, Friday noon after an stressful week). Much harder to forget what the word “filter” means. Also much easier to recognize words than symbols where differences might be small.

rak1507 4y ago
It's really unlikely (imo impossible) you'll forget what a symbol means in APL or K etc if you program in it reasonably often. There aren't many symbols, and most of them are used pretty frequently. If you do forget, there's plenty of resources to jog your memory though. The Dyalog RIDE has a language bar at the top, and hovering over a symbol gives a brief description with examples. https://janiczek.github.io/tryapl-elm/ https://janiczek.github.io/tryapl-elm/ replicates this if you want to see for yourself. I disagree that it's easier to recognise words than symbols if there are small differences, the symbols are distinctive anyway so that's not really a real problem.
- gjulianm 4y ago
  > It's really unlikely (imo impossible) you'll forget what a symbol means in APL or K etc if you program in it reasonably often. Well, of course, if you’re always practicing the same thing you’re unlikely to forget it. That’s not always the case, though. > the symbols are distinctive anyway so that's not really a real problem. Really? From that toolbar alone I’m seeing empty circle vs slightly smaller empty circle, a lot of symbols with/without a dash or umlaut, dot and comma… seems pretty easy to get a lot of those confused or misread.
  - rak1507 4y ago
    It seems like it might be easy to confuse things, but from experience, it isn't. I feel like in general, you're making a lot of (fairly reasonable) assumptions about what programming in an array language is like, but they aren't really the case (as lots of other people have tried to explain). Without really trying it out, I'm not sure how someone could convince you otherwise, so there's a bit of an impasse. I think you should listen to what people are saying and have said in the past though (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33640275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33640275, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22524918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22524918) and trust that for some people who do learn array languages, they do find it useful + productive, and a lot of the things you've raised are not issues in practice.
    - gjulianm 4y ago
      I have listened and to me it always seems to come down to “you make reasonable points but it’s not a problem for me so it’s not a problem”. And I think there’s a lot of implicit bias when people who like APL say it’s perfectly readable. Given how readability hits you in the face first thing when you see APL and how it’s not a widely used language, only the people enthusiastic about it and willing to overlook the readability issues will end up learning it. Of course they don’t find issues in practice, if they had issues with that they’d have probably abandoned the language quickly. > and trust that for some people who do learn array languages, they do find it useful + productive, and a lot of the things you've raised are not issues in practice. I’m not saying it isn’t useful or productive. That’s not the discussion. The point is that they’re languages that they’re hard to use and hard to read. I don’t see how it’s such a controversial point. For example, I like LaTeX a lot. I’ve done quite a lot of things with it, it’s been very useful and I’ve been very productive with it. I have no problem reading that code. But the fact that I have no problems doesn’t mean there aren’t actual problems with LaTeX. LaTeX will always be hard to read and quite a bit messy no matter how used I get to it.
      - rak1507 4y ago
        Yes - the first thing you notice when you see APL is 'this looks weird'. Most people then assume 'this is complicated, hard to read, and hard to use', and move on with their lives. Some people decide to learn it anyway, and quickly (within under a day) realise it is actually simple, readable, and easy to use! It's not like some people are magically born with the ability to read APL (or anything else), and learning it isn't a matter of 'overlooking the readability issues', but rather realising the 'readability issues' are a false assumption. There's not 'bias', there's just experience. That is why "they’re hard to use and hard to read" is 'controversial', because it is just not true.