Anonymous user
Talk:Check Machin-like formulas: Difference between revisions
m
minor
(→Floating-point calculations: thanks & thoughts on more literate code) |
m (minor) |
||
Line 30:
:::I'm hoping that repeatedly seeing J solutions which are short, sharp, and crisp, especially on tasks where other languages need to expend paragraphs or even pages of code, will provide that impetus. To be clear: I don't play code golf with my solutions (you really don't want to see me do that in J), but I do try to keep the code clean and uncluttered, with minimal narrative (e.g. breaking out trivial sub-functions, overlyLongVariableNames, patronizing comments, etc). The alternative is to write longer, more tutorial-style solutions, which given J's alien nature, would amount to a language primer rather than an algorithmic overview.
:::To put it another way: if learning J is analogous to learning Japanese, then teaching J is analogous to teaching Japanese, and marking-up the solutions is analogous to trying to elucidate the beauty of a Japanese haiku to someone who is only familiar with English ballads.
:::Of course, we don't have to choose one extreme or the other. If I think a solution merits deeper consideration, sometimes I (or my J-brethren) will write up a longer exposition on the task's Talk page, and link to it from the solution, e.g. [Talk:Zig_Zag#reading_the_J_examples|Zig Zag] (which explanation helped other languages improve their solutions). But explanations of that depth take a bit of time to write, so I don't it for every solution.
| |||