User talk:Dkf: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
::::: Writing code that is both idiomatic and maintainable is a good target. (Indeed, that's the case for any language but some have more of a culture of it than others.) Which leaves a suggested thing for the J community to do: go through the existing solutions in J and evaluate whether they are good style (from both technical and pedagogic perspectives, of course); I've already been doing this with the Tcl solutions, but I'm not in a position to be able to do it for every language. There's only a fixed number of hours in the day... ☺ —[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 12:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
::::: Writing code that is both idiomatic and maintainable is a good target. (Indeed, that's the case for any language but some have more of a culture of it than others.) Which leaves a suggested thing for the J community to do: go through the existing solutions in J and evaluate whether they are good style (from both technical and pedagogic perspectives, of course); I've already been doing this with the Tcl solutions, but I'm not in a position to be able to do it for every language. There's only a fixed number of hours in the day... ☺ —[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 12:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
Most of the J code presented in RC examples |
Most of the J code presented in the RC J examples are considered good form - to J programmers. The main issue is that programmers familiar with other languages tend to expect an algorithm statement to have explicit iteration, and perhaps consume several lines of code. What is "good form" to a J programmer isn't necessarily easily readable to programmers familiar with scalar languages. |
||
I agree with Donal Fellows, in that more detailed comments and algorithm explanations are required for every code example in the RC forum, since the whole point is to help readers unfamiliar with that specific language understand what is going on in the code. The more unconventional a language is, the more explanation required. Hence, J examples in RC should display good coding practices (for J) in the example, but that code example should also be accompanied with thorough explanations and comments, all of which should be more thorough than if the audience was just J programmers. For that matter, this advice should be applied for all RC code examples. [[User:Teledon|Teledon]] 8:47am 13 October 2009 |
|||
: J symbols can easily be assigned English words, just as mathematical symbols can be assigned words. |
: J symbols can easily be assigned English words, just as mathematical symbols can be assigned words. |
||