User talk:Dkf: Difference between revisions
→Your discussion about J
(→Your discussion about J: link to JforC foreword) |
|||
Line 64:
:::: I think Teledon has a point. J may well be great, but because it is so unlike the C and Lisp and forth based languages that I know more about, it remains impenetrable to me, and probably most other RC readers.
:::: Even so, I think the J guys should '''write good, maintainable, idiomatic J''' and maybe help out us poor, non-J readers maybe by answering questions on the talk pages?
::::: This sounds like a good idea, but how do we find the questions in a timely fashion? Perhaps we should introduce a new category (potentially for each language but of course also for J), for people to use when asking for clarification? [[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: At one time I was in the Texas Instruments camp against the HP Reverse-Polish Notation calculators. Then I learnt all about Reverse-Polish when writing an interpreter and revisited my earlier conclusions on RPN and new that they were rubbish. Later, before I learnt a Lisp-like language I was careful not to reject their claims, and I did learn what made it so good to program in at the time. But now I prefer Python for most things, and am being 'tickled' by Haskell/OCaml/D/Oz. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 11:07, 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)
| |||