4 ms·

Given the JVM supports Unicode identifiers, and given the rich vein of mathematical operators therein, I always thought it would be fun to do the APL thing with

by jrabone 13y ago

Given the JVM supports Unicode identifiers, and given the rich vein of mathematical operators therein, I always thought it would be fun to do the APL thing with Java. Scala went a (very) little way towards this, but I don't think anyone has taken it to logical extremes yet. (although I did once threaten my co-workers that I would tell the theoretical mathematician on the team about Unicode identifiers in Java. He used to write LaTeX in the Javadoc comments [which Doxygen handles rather nicely])

wtetzner 13y ago
I believe Fortress used Unicode identifiers quite extensively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_(programming_language) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_(programming_language)
- riffraff 13y ago
  I believe you misremember. From what I recall fortress had an ascii syntax where special combinations would be translated into symbols by the doc/rendering system, eg NN would be rendered as (bold N used for natural numbers).
limmeau 13y ago
This would be even more fun if Java supported user-defined infix operators with adjustable precedence, like Haskell. Or even mix-fix operators like Maude. Maude lets you define operators with variable arity and arbitrary stuff before, between and after, like let _ = _ in _ _::_(_) _,_ |- _ You _, but I _ Always considered this a cool feature.
mcguire 13y ago
"tell the theoretical mathematician on the team about Unicode identifiers in Java" ...thus reducing his productivity to zero while he hunts through the Unicode maps to find the glyph he wants?
- tikhonj 13y ago
  Emacs has the TeX input mode which lets you type special characters using their TeX names. So you can type \alpha for α, \to for → and so on. And if you don't like that for whatever reason, there are other alternative input modes you can use. If you're using a tool which forces you to use a map to find glyphs, you're simply doing it wrong. Really, there is no excuse in this day and age not to support Unicode well!

by jrabone 13y ago

wtetzner 13y ago

I believe Fortress used Unicode identifiers quite extensively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_(programming_language) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_(programming_language)

riffraff 13y ago
I believe you misremember. From what I recall fortress had an ascii syntax where special combinations would be translated into symbols by the doc/rendering system, eg NN would be rendered as (bold N used for natural numbers).

limmeau 13y ago

This would be even more fun if Java supported user-defined infix operators with adjustable precedence, like Haskell. Or even mix-fix operators like Maude. Maude lets you define operators with variable arity and arbitrary stuff before, between and after, like let _ = _ in _ _::_(_) _,_ |- _ You _, but I _ Always considered this a cool feature.

mcguire 13y ago

"tell the theoretical mathematician on the team about Unicode identifiers in Java" ...thus reducing his productivity to zero while he hunts through the Unicode maps to find the glyph he wants?

tikhonj 13y ago
Emacs has the TeX input mode which lets you type special characters using their TeX names. So you can type \alpha for α, \to for → and so on. And if you don't like that for whatever reason, there are other alternative input modes you can use. If you're using a tool which forces you to use a map to find glyphs, you're simply doing it wrong. Really, there is no excuse in this day and age not to support Unicode well!