3 ms·
It reminds me even more of Q[0], a derivative of K which similarly replaces many operators with named words. I agree with your conclusion that given complex pri
by RodgerTheGreat 12y ago
It reminds me even more of Q[0], a derivative of K which similarly replaces many operators with named words. I agree with your conclusion that given complex primitive operators a name seems to be only superficially more "intuitive" than an arbitrary symbol.
The need to memorize some collection of primitives before programs can be read seems to be a troubling barrier to beginners in any APL-family language, and I'm not sure how it could be addressed.
[0] http://code.kx.com/wiki/JB:QforMortals/overview http://code.kx.com/wiki/JB:QforMortals/overview
- brudgers 12y agoI think the solution is not to fret to much over beginners and focus on the people who are trying to solve problems that make learning a new language worth it. It's like regular expressions - because they describe state machines there's a limit to how far you can dumb things down. Any programming language that seeks to map well to mathematical notation is going to have a particular set of abstractions and therefore require a particular mindset. We don't expect maths to be easy for beginners...taking off just a few of the painful sharp corners is considered a big big win. Why should other languages for describing computation be considered failures or successes under different criteria?