4 ms·

> What I mean by "readable" is, that it uses ASCII strings and actual names, not merely 1 character I urge you to reconsider: That they are 1-character is an e

by geocar 4y ago

> What I mean by "readable" is, that it uses ASCII strings and actual names, not merely 1 character I urge you to reconsider: That they are 1-character is an extremely important feature of Iverson's work. > instead of symbols, of which I do not know their names Why do we write 5+5 and not five plus five? The symbols are important! Gosh, can you even remember not knowing how to do addition? Don't you remember how much easier adding things up became once you learned "+"? Most of Iverson's ideas for symbols really good -- so good that if you do learn their names and everything about them you will have the most amazing ideas as significant a change in you as learning "+" > I should not need a special keyboard or special keyboard layout to write programs in the language. You don't need anything of the sort, but if you can't touch-type in APL you might want keycaps, because I think connecting the idea with a single symbol or unique idea is harder if you keep having to translate to English all the time.

abrudz 4y ago
APL Mnemonics: https://dyalog.tv/APLSeeds23/?v=qZtb4XOLdkI https://dyalog.tv/APLSeeds23/?v=qZtb4XOLdkI
gigatexal 4y ago
If the symbols are just functions then they can have longer-than-one-character names. A(x,y) is no different than add(x,y) no?
- ruste 4y ago
  The advantage of single character concatenated symbols is that it allows your brain to group them rather than forcing you to read them separately. This means you almost unconsciously build up a bunch of set of instantly recognizable "chunks" of symbols that represent concepts you're familiar with. Each of these chunks can represent the equivalent of a huge amount of code in another language.
  - bear8642 4y ago
    > bunch of set of instantly recognizable "chunks" Indeed! Much of APL programming is using idioms (≠⊆⊢ for example as split on delimiters) https://aplcart.info https://aplcart.info has a good selection too
- t-3 4y ago
  As the other poster implied, it's the difference between a library of functions and an alphabet for composing functions. Concise symbols allow composition of "words" in a way that longer names really don't. There's a practical language design side too - I don't think the right-to-left evaluation and accompanying concision and logical reading order would work otherwise. Maps in other languages are so clumsy and clunky and backwards compared to the APL equivalent.
  - gitonthescene 4y ago
    Germans beg to differ
psychoslave 4y ago
>Why do we write 5+5 and not five plus five? Because tradition is a very hard stuff to get rid of. Just like clocks with needles, with 12 sections. If you assume addition as implicit juxtaposition syntactic operator ⁙⁙ or ⬠⬠ is also damn efficient to represent five plus five (/faɪv.plʌs.faɪv/ in IPA). In Ruby: class Fixnum alias_method :plus, :+;end five=5 five.plus five Multiple letter "five" is a single symbol, just as the multiple pixel 5 glyph. Now, there is some convenience in having scripturally short symbols when you do your math with paper and pencil, for example posing some additions in column. But that’s all there is to it, pencil convenience. A concept is a single semantic idea whatever the length of the symbol used to refer to that concept.
- geocar 4y ago
  > Now, there is some convenience in having scripturally short symbols when you do your math with paper and pencil, for example posing some additions in column. But that’s all there is to it, pencil convenience. You say that like you can just say it, and it's so, but you've got no evidence all symbols are equal even if they are equal in some ways, and Iverson delivered such an utterly convincing argument to the contrary by showing example after example of the exact opposite. You should read it a few times: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1283920.1283935 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1283920.1283935 > A concept is a single semantic idea whatever the length of the symbol used to refer to that concept. No, symbols take up real space on the page, on the screen, and in our minds; there are only so many symbols you're going to be able to put in your mind in your career, or in your life, so if there's a way to say some symbols are better than others, then by knowing the better symbols you will among other things, be able to solve bigger problems faster and with fewer bugs. That may not be important to you, but it's important to me! "+" is a really good symbol. That's why the tradition has been so hard to shake, and that "pencil convenience" has been with us for thousands of years, but "+" isn't that old! For a long time addition was performed with juxtaposition! Just a series of stroke marks like |||| but seriously 5+5 is better than ||||||||||| and nobody can convince me otherwise! I think though, if you aren't convinced by now, I'm not sure what else I can do.
  - mlajtos 4y ago

by geocar 4y ago

abrudz 4y ago

APL Mnemonics: https://dyalog.tv/APLSeeds23/?v=qZtb4XOLdkI https://dyalog.tv/APLSeeds23/?v=qZtb4XOLdkI

gigatexal 4y ago

If the symbols are just functions then they can have longer-than-one-character names. A(x,y) is no different than add(x,y) no?

ruste 4y ago
The advantage of single character concatenated symbols is that it allows your brain to group them rather than forcing you to read them separately. This means you almost unconsciously build up a bunch of set of instantly recognizable "chunks" of symbols that represent concepts you're familiar with. Each of these chunks can represent the equivalent of a huge amount of code in another language.
- bear8642 4y ago
  > bunch of set of instantly recognizable "chunks" Indeed! Much of APL programming is using idioms (≠⊆⊢ for example as split on delimiters) https://aplcart.info https://aplcart.info has a good selection too
t-3 4y ago
As the other poster implied, it's the difference between a library of functions and an alphabet for composing functions. Concise symbols allow composition of "words" in a way that longer names really don't. There's a practical language design side too - I don't think the right-to-left evaluation and accompanying concision and logical reading order would work otherwise. Maps in other languages are so clumsy and clunky and backwards compared to the APL equivalent.
- gitonthescene 4y ago
  Germans beg to differ

psychoslave 4y ago

>Why do we write 5+5 and not five plus five? Because tradition is a very hard stuff to get rid of. Just like clocks with needles, with 12 sections. If you assume addition as implicit juxtaposition syntactic operator ⁙⁙ or ⬠⬠ is also damn efficient to represent five plus five (/faɪv.plʌs.faɪv/ in IPA). In Ruby: class Fixnum alias_method :plus, :+;end five=5 five.plus five Multiple letter "five" is a single symbol, just as the multiple pixel 5 glyph. Now, there is some convenience in having scripturally short symbols when you do your math with paper and pencil, for example posing some additions in column. But that’s all there is to it, pencil convenience. A concept is a single semantic idea whatever the length of the symbol used to refer to that concept.

geocar 4y ago
> Now, there is some convenience in having scripturally short symbols when you do your math with paper and pencil, for example posing some additions in column. But that’s all there is to it, pencil convenience. You say that like you can just say it, and it's so, but you've got no evidence all symbols are equal even if they are equal in some ways, and Iverson delivered such an utterly convincing argument to the contrary by showing example after example of the exact opposite. You should read it a few times: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1283920.1283935 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1283920.1283935 > A concept is a single semantic idea whatever the length of the symbol used to refer to that concept. No, symbols take up real space on the page, on the screen, and in our minds; there are only so many symbols you're going to be able to put in your mind in your career, or in your life, so if there's a way to say some symbols are better than others, then by knowing the better symbols you will among other things, be able to solve bigger problems faster and with fewer bugs. That may not be important to you, but it's important to me! "+" is a really good symbol. That's why the tradition has been so hard to shake, and that "pencil convenience" has been with us for thousands of years, but "+" isn't that old! For a long time addition was performed with juxtaposition! Just a series of stroke marks like |||| but seriously 5+5 is better than ||||||||||| and nobody can convince me otherwise! I think though, if you aren't convinced by now, I'm not sure what else I can do.
- mlajtos 4y ago