Anonymous user
User talk:Dkf: Difference between revisions
→Your discussion about J: Write idiomatic J?
(→Your discussion about J: responses) |
(→Your discussion about J: Write idiomatic J?) |
||
Line 57:
:::: One of the key purposes of this site is to show to non-experts in a particular language how to use it to do tasks that they may understand from their knowledge of other languages. This suggests that using longer names and more comments than you otherwise would is likely to be a good plan... —[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 10:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: 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, idiomatic J and maybe help out us poor, non-J readers maybe by answering questions on the talk pages?
:::: 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)
| |||