It’s awe-inspiring to see a K program where the comments are in another APL variant (I can’t pretend to know which): {d:~1=':s:^x / s‿e←1⊸»⊸(>⋈ This program implements a Pigdog Latin translator, bien sûr .
[flagged]
K: We need to talk about group
21–30 of 102 posts
Re: K: We need to talk about group
#22It’s awe-inspiring to see a K program where the comments are in another APL variant (I can’t pretend to know which): {d:~1=':s:^x / s‿e←1⊸»⊸(>⋈ This program implements a Pigdog Latin translator, bien sûr .
Isn't the original APL the only lang that uses actual Unicode symbols for operators?
There are esoteric code golf languages that use unicode. MPW (shell, assembler) used extended characters (MacRoman, not unicode but then again, APL also predates unicode) for some operations.
eg, instead of "echo yo >> file" you would "echo yo ≥ file"
Re: K: We need to talk about group
#23It’s awe-inspiring to see a K program where the comments are in another APL variant (I can’t pretend to know which): {d:~1=':s:^x / s‿e←1⊸»⊸(>⋈ This program implements a Pigdog Latin translator, bien sûr .
Isn't the original APL the only lang that uses actual Unicode symbols for operators?
Agda does too! https://plfa.github.io/ for examples
Re: K: We need to talk about group
#24is there any way i can try this out?
ngn k : https://codeberg.org/ngn/k kona : https://github.com/kevinlawler/kona alto a javascript implementation even with a graphics library : https://github.com/JohnEarnest/ok edit : assuming you were talking about k and not freq
OMG: https://codeberg.org/ngn/k/src/branch/master/a.c>
My maths notebook from high school looked like that. I'm having flashbacks. (At least in text files you can't cram 4 lines of text into 1.)
Re: K: We need to talk about group
#25These line-noise programming languages read like a cruel joke on engineers in the finance world.
I am happily programming in a for 6 years now, and will not give it up
Re: K: We need to talk about group
#26It’s awe-inspiring to see a K program where the comments are in another APL variant (I can’t pretend to know which): {d:~1=':s:^x / s‿e←1⊸»⊸(>⋈ This program implements a Pigdog Latin translator, bien sûr .
Isn't the original APL the only lang that uses actual Unicode symbols for operators?
Fortress.
Re: K: We need to talk about group
#27It’s awe-inspiring to see a K program where the comments are in another APL variant (I can’t pretend to know which): {d:~1=':s:^x / s‿e←1⊸»⊸(>⋈ This program implements a Pigdog Latin translator, bien sûr .
Isn't the original APL the only lang that uses actual Unicode symbols for operators?
APL predates Unicode! You used to have to use special APL keyboards to write it. The symbols were included in Unicode as a way to try and make APL more palatable.
Re: K: We need to talk about group
#28Re: K: We need to talk about group
#29It’s awe-inspiring to see a K program where the comments are in another APL variant (I can’t pretend to know which): {d:~1=':s:^x / s‿e←1⊸»⊸(>⋈ This program implements a Pigdog Latin translator, bien sûr .
Amazingly, APL is more readable. Actually, it's even pretty intuitive. Which proves again, that restricting code to ASCII when every competent programmer (and PC-user in general) can enter almost any unicode symbols just fine is simply stupid.
Re: K: We need to talk about group
#30It’s awe-inspiring to see a K program where the comments are in another APL variant (I can’t pretend to know which): {d:~1=':s:^x / s‿e←1⊸»⊸(>⋈ This program implements a Pigdog Latin translator, bien sûr .
I... just can't. I work a lot with data, so it sounds like it should be a good fit for what I do, but I find that writing the damn code in a normal language is much more productive. Maybe it's my brain that's wired wrong, but I fail to see how the entire construction is supposed to help.
A friend worked on a project in 2005 that had lots of K code in production. They had a contract with Kx Systems and Arthur Whitney in particular because, in my friend's opinion, only Whitney could really understand K code well enough to debug it. Friend's description was it took my friend two days just to comment the code into something grokkable by a normal developer, whereas AW didn't need to do that. Of course, it took Whitney those same two days of staring at the code before he said "Oh, of course, how silly of me." and found the bug and all resolved.
Part of those two days of commenting was that since K is interpreted all of the developers would hand-obfuscate all of the code so that the variables were a, b, c, etc. so that they would be slightly faster to parse than a multi-character string. This sort of thing is done all the time now, with JS to make it load faster, but his team at least didn't have any scripts to automatically turn developer-friendly code into interpreter-friendly code, they worked with the interpreter-friendly code version.