5 ms·

k/q really doesn't have to be this unreadable, that's just Arthurs style. Here's some code in C by him for comparison: http://kx.com/q/cs107/a.c http://kx.com/q

by ah- 12y ago

k/q really doesn't have to be this unreadable, that's just Arthurs style. Here's some code in C by him for comparison: http://kx.com/q/cs107/a.c http://kx.com/q/cs107/a.c

sohagan857 12y ago
Q isn't unreadable. Its implemented in standard English words.http://code.kx.com/wiki/Reference http://code.kx.com/wiki/Reference K is considered unreadable by many.
- ah- 12y ago
  I was more referring to the almost exclusive use of single letter variable names. If one would use at least short words to name things, the implementation would be a whole lot more understandable.
cheez 12y ago
If that's true, why aren't there DSLs that compile to k?
ANTSANTS 12y ago
Good lord, I need a drink now.
nemo1618 12y ago
I tried cleaning it up a bit: https://gist.github.com/lukechampine/f54fce8fd756254cefb2 https://gist.github.com/lukechampine/f54fce8fd756254cefb2 But the actual meaning of the program is still lost on me. I can only guess it has something to do with parsing files (note the checks for curly braces). Feeding it its own source code produces some output, but I have no idea what it actually modified.
- Torn 12y ago
  The original is 404ing, do you have a mirror?
  - nemo1618 12y ago
    Sure: https://gist.github.com/lukechampine/e759098e717e42bc11c5 https://gist.github.com/lukechampine/e759098e717e42bc11c5
    - lobster_johnson 12y ago
      That's the original C file, where did your "cleaned-up" version go?
- epsylon 12y ago
  It's a solution to CS107 assignment 1 : http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs107/assign1.html http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs107/assign1.html
  - nemo1618 12y ago
    Guess I could have just looked at the URL, huh. Well, it was fun trying to reverse Whitney's code anyhow. Humorously, it looks like this code would have received a poor grade. It meets just about every standard for low quality outlined here: http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs107/landmarks.html http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs107/landmarks.html, particularly "Fast code which doesn't work quite right." (Due to an off-by-one error, this code fails to properly reconstruct the example text.)
    - asd02 12y ago
      > Due to an off-by-one error, this code fails to properly reconstruct the example text What's your example? It seems to work fine to me on "{all is well}{ell that en}{hat end}{t ends well}"
- ah- 12y ago
  In case anybody is still interested, it's now up on http://kparc.com/cs107/readme http://kparc.com/cs107/readme
icsa 12y ago
Here is a style for K (http://nsl.com/papers/style.pdf http://nsl.com/papers/style.pdf) 1995. Interestingly, most of the concepts still apply. I believe the audience is developers using K in a commercial/production environment. The biggest differences, compared to Arthur's style of writing, are: * Less code on each line * A separate comment column on each line * Nominal use of spaces for readability

by ah- 12y ago

k/q really doesn't have to be this unreadable, that's just Arthurs style. Here's some code in C by him for comparison: http://kx.com/q/cs107/a.c http://kx.com/q/cs107/a.c

sohagan857 12y ago

Q isn't unreadable. Its implemented in standard English words.http://code.kx.com/wiki/Reference http://code.kx.com/wiki/Reference K is considered unreadable by many.

ah- 12y ago
I was more referring to the almost exclusive use of single letter variable names. If one would use at least short words to name things, the implementation would be a whole lot more understandable.

cheez 12y ago

If that's true, why aren't there DSLs that compile to k?

ANTSANTS 12y ago

Good lord, I need a drink now.

nemo1618 12y ago

I tried cleaning it up a bit: https://gist.github.com/lukechampine/f54fce8fd756254cefb2 https://gist.github.com/lukechampine/f54fce8fd756254cefb2 But the actual meaning of the program is still lost on me. I can only guess it has something to do with parsing files (note the checks for curly braces). Feeding it its own source code produces some output, but I have no idea what it actually modified.

Torn 12y ago
The original is 404ing, do you have a mirror?
- nemo1618 12y ago
  Sure: https://gist.github.com/lukechampine/e759098e717e42bc11c5 https://gist.github.com/lukechampine/e759098e717e42bc11c5
  - lobster_johnson 12y ago
    That's the original C file, where did your "cleaned-up" version go?
epsylon 12y ago
It's a solution to CS107 assignment 1 : http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs107/assign1.html http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs107/assign1.html
- nemo1618 12y ago
  Guess I could have just looked at the URL, huh. Well, it was fun trying to reverse Whitney's code anyhow. Humorously, it looks like this code would have received a poor grade. It meets just about every standard for low quality outlined here: http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs107/landmarks.html http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs107/landmarks.html, particularly "Fast code which doesn't work quite right." (Due to an off-by-one error, this code fails to properly reconstruct the example text.)
  - asd02 12y ago
    > Due to an off-by-one error, this code fails to properly reconstruct the example text What's your example? It seems to work fine to me on "{all is well}{ell that en}{hat end}{t ends well}"
ah- 12y ago
In case anybody is still interested, it's now up on http://kparc.com/cs107/readme http://kparc.com/cs107/readme

icsa 12y ago

Here is a style for K (http://nsl.com/papers/style.pdf http://nsl.com/papers/style.pdf) 1995. Interestingly, most of the concepts still apply. I believe the audience is developers using K in a commercial/production environment. The biggest differences, compared to Arthur's style of writing, are: * Less code on each line * A separate comment column on each line * Nominal use of spaces for readability