6 ms·
> We already tried going full-APL but it only proved that it wasn't a good idea. When you say full-APL do you mean in one leap? Then I agree it's not a good id
by vorg 14y ago
> We already tried going full-APL but it only proved that it wasn't a good idea.
When you say full-APL do you mean in one leap? Then I agree it's not a good idea, but how about going to APL in stages? First introduce just some operators (e.g. × ∧ ∨ ∈ ≥ ≤ ≠ → ⇒ only), then introduce more gradually until all APL operators are in use? Then keep on introducing other symbols from Unicode not in APL.
- sp332 14y agoWell I used "we" continuing ruther's sense of "programmers in general". I didn't really do APL myself. I think it was Alan Kay who said: we needed to make APL to know what going too far looked like, that way we could stop wondering if we could do better by going further.