rak1507

19 ms·

1. 151.▲
   by rak1507 5y ago

   I don't want to repeat myself here so I'll link a previous comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28094051 The tl;dr is that while you have to learn a few more symbols, the benefit of that is they're so
2. 152.▲
   by rak1507 5y ago

   I've been learning APL for a bit, and have tried q too, and I disagree with the idea you need more skill and concentration to write either. Personally, for problems that suit the domain, I've found it much easier than equivalents
3. 153.▲
   by rak1507 5y ago

   That sounds like an interesting idea, but to me a more convincing thing would be seeing the same person do something with + without copilot and see if it makes a big difference when used correctly. To me 'smarter and faster' means
4. 154.▲
   by rak1507 5y ago

   I don't just think it isn't, I know it isn't. I've tried it, and watched friends try it too. Copilot is decent at speeding up some commonly occurring boilerplate in a common language, and pretty bad at anything else. F
5. 155.▲
   by rak1507 5y ago

   If copilot is smarter and faster than you, that says more about you than it does about copilot :)
6. 156.▲
   From Löb's Theorem to Spreadsheet Evaluation(blog.sigfpe.com)

   2 points by rak1507 5y ago|0 comments
7. 157.▲
   by rak1507 5y ago

   I know it's proprietary, it isn't my language of choice, but it's a lot better than GNU APL. If they really want something open source and good, J, open source ks, or BQN will be better. But if you're suggesting an APL d
8. 158.▲
   by rak1507 5y ago

   I would recommend Dyalog APL over GNU APL, it is much more modern.
9. 159.▲
   by rak1507 5y ago

   Many people can read it easily. Developing things in a repl is common in many languages, it doesn't mean the code is unreadable.
10. 160.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    Why?
11. 161.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    commercial ks are not open source ngn/k is foss and can be installed on linux https://codeberg.org/ngn/k
12. 162.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    https://www.cryptoisnotcryptocurrency.com/
13. 163.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    I would appreciate it if golang was any good. Unfortunately, it isn't. (It isn't functional either, so I'm not sure what point you were making)
14. 164.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    Yeah, under and over are great (wish k had more 'combinators' in general), but k does manage to cram a lot of stuff in with overloads. I feel like k is terser in general but I don't really have much evidence to back it up, ju
15. 165.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    Personally from what I've seen I wouldn't say BQN values terseness more than k, probably less than most other array langs. (Edit: if you downvoted this: why?)
16. 166.▲
    The ATS Programming Language(ats-lang.org)

    99 points by rak1507 5y ago|36 comments
17. 167.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    Check out the other articles too. https://beyondloom.com/blog/denial.html was posted on HN recently, I wonder if that's how the poster found it.
18. 168.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    Default arguments to anonymous functions are x, y, and z. You can also name arguments like this. {[foo; bar] foo+bar} is the same as {x+y} I'm not denying it is probably more possible to gain a superficial understanding of what code wr
19. 169.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    An anonymous function is defined (can't find a better word) between braces like {x+1}, in python (lambda x: x+1). There is an inner one, {x,+/-2#x}, and the outer one (the entire thing). / (like a lot of k symbols) does a few
20. 170.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    Where to start reading: https://github.com/JohnEarnest/ok/blob/gh-pages/docs/Manual.... maybe If you ever feel like trying it again, and get stuck on something, https://chat.stackexchange
21. 171.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    I'm not going to deny that learning any array language requires thinking slightly differently (as does any new paradigm), but really this example doesn't use anything particularly strange. {x#x{x,+/-2#x}/0 1}
22. 172.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    I don't use it professionally or anything like that but most of the real world use as far as I know is in finance stuff.
23. 173.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    Yes, a direct translation. (Using the reduction)
24. 174.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    Been doing k for a bit (under a year). A single glance is optimistic, but probably only took me a few seconds. Almost certainly faster than any equivalent code in any other language. It's even easier if you give it a nice name, like &q
25. 175.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    I'd say there are two learning curves involved. The first is knowing what every symbol does. This sounds like it will be quite hard, but honestly probably takes less than a day. APL really doesn't have a lot of stuff to remember.
26. 176.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    Cool idea, https://github.com/phantomics/april does this a bit, would definitely like to see something similar in other languages too.
27. 177.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    > With modern day IDEs, auto suggestions would likely lead most developers to easily discovering the exact syntax for "product". Sure. I don't doubt this. However, if your language is good enough, it's unnecessary. I
28. 178.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    https://code.kx.com/q/ uses words for a lot of things. Instead of the APL ⌈/ you write 'max'. Instead of the APL ⌈\ you write 'maxs'. And so on. Personally, I much prefer the APL for a few reas
29. 179.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    Interesting! Aaron Hsu agrees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIItfQJEVdM
30. 180.▲
    by rak1507 5y ago

    Good maps + sets + other data structures is definitely something that I miss occasionally in array languages. I should look into Clojure more, I've heard lots of good things about it.