3 ms·

Stop trying to fight a language, then? Just learn those few unfamiliar constructs the language is build upon and start using it. Actually, in J there is not tha

Stop trying to fight a language, then? Just learn those few unfamiliar constructs the language is build upon and start using it. Actually, in J there is not that much of what you need to learn, here is the full list: http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/vocabul.htm http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/vocabul.htm And here is a bit more involved explanation of what those words mean: http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/HenryRich?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=J602_RefCard_color_letter_current.pdf http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/HenryRich?action=AttachFile&d... If there is one thing I learned as a polyglot it's that language usage patterns differ and trying to use one language as if it was another is counterproductive. My advice is to learn more and practice more - at some point you'll start seeing higher-level patterns in language design and will be able to cope with many, now unfamiliar, features and design decisions.

tormeh 13y ago
I do see patterns in languages, it's just that the patterns are hidden below arbitrary nonsensical syntax that has to be relearned every single time I switch language. Some syntax, like Python's, is easier to remember and guess than other syntax. I conclude that Python's syntax is good and Haskell/J's syntax is bad. Basically, I want the languages I use and have to constantly relearn to have a syntax that is quick to pick up after having partly forgotten it for the nth time. That requires memorable and guessable names and keywords.
- avmich 13y ago
  I'd recommend reading Iverson's "Notation as a Tool of Thought" (http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/tot.htm http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/tot.htm) . Operator looks for APL - and then for J - were modelled after mathematical notation, which had to be extended somewhat towards computations. But can you imagine writing on a whiteboard, say, "samples_transposed" instead of A'? You definitely can use words instead of many symbols in J. I highly doubt though you want to do that for the core language. Much more productive - IMO - is to learn the vocabulary - which is very finite. Yes, I know it's a great show stopper for those considering learning J.

tormeh 13y ago

I do see patterns in languages, it's just that the patterns are hidden below arbitrary nonsensical syntax that has to be relearned every single time I switch language. Some syntax, like Python's, is easier to remember and guess than other syntax. I conclude that Python's syntax is good and Haskell/J's syntax is bad. Basically, I want the languages I use and have to constantly relearn to have a syntax that is quick to pick up after having partly forgotten it for the nth time. That requires memorable and guessable names and keywords.

avmich 13y ago
I'd recommend reading Iverson's "Notation as a Tool of Thought" (http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/tot.htm http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/tot.htm) . Operator looks for APL - and then for J - were modelled after mathematical notation, which had to be extended somewhat towards computations. But can you imagine writing on a whiteboard, say, "samples_transposed" instead of A'? You definitely can use words instead of many symbols in J. I highly doubt though you want to do that for the core language. Much more productive - IMO - is to learn the vocabulary - which is very finite. Yes, I know it's a great show stopper for those considering learning J.