81–90 of 102 posts
These line-noise programming languages read like a cruel joke on engineers in the finance world.
It is much easier to become good at k/q if you have experts sitting next to you. Learning this at home (or reading about it on hn) can be very frustrating!
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 .
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.
Yeah, I’d love to discuss with colleagues how square-c works together with right double crowbar.
No, thanks.
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 .
Isn't the original APL the only lang that uses actual Unicode symbols for operators?
In the Raku Programming Language there are several non-ASCII operators, although each of them has a pure ASCII equivalent. Some examples: ≤ vs The full list: https://docs.raku.org/language/unicode_ascii.html
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 .
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see, thanks! Looks like I might try both. The "no proper lightweight anonymous function syntax" sounds weird to me, I would have thought that's paramount for an array language? Do I misunderstand?
In J if you want to do something fairly complex without writing a function you can pile up a bunch of verbs/operators into a big (point free) verb-train. You can't do recursion, loops or explicit flow control but in the Array Languages that's not much of a handicap, it can get pretty hairy to read though In dyalog you can (as of about v13) do that if you want, or you can just use curly brackets { and inside of them h…
So the summary of that long post: we still need group but Shakti/k9 gets rid of it because it's too slow forcing the user to diy it with other primitives as needed? I love it... It's the exact opposite of every other language design. Others: lets ship it with every tool a developer might ask for. K9: Occam's razor to everything. Nothing is safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In J if you want to do something fairly complex without writing a function you can pile up a bunch of verbs/operators into a big (point free) verb-train. You can't do recursion, loops or explicit flow control but in the Array Languages that's not much of a handicap, it can get pretty hairy to read though In dyalog you can (as of about v13) do that if you want, or you can just use curly brackets { and inside of them h…
J recursion is $: You can do flow control in both scripting style and array style. Loops are loops.
N.B. a sibling says J has added a direct definition construct while I wasn't watching which renders my comment largely irrelevant although the I feel general point that a lot of J 'example code' tends towards difficult-for-noobs to parse verb trains still holds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
←⥊c⊏∾× Yeah, I’d love to discuss with colleagues how square-c works together with right double crowbar. No, thanks.
x = √y
… would you pronounce it as “x, two parallel horizontal lines, V with a left hook, y”?
The symbols have a meaning that’s unrelated to their appearance. It’s the same in APL. The “square c” is just like “V with a left hook”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actual thing that lines up a series of sell-at-this-price bids and the series of buy-at-this-price bids (or even more complicated types of orders, this the easy case) and crosses them over, figuring out who gets what bids filled by whom at what price, at supremely fast speeds and large volumes.
I think I’ve only heard of such a component referred to as a matching engine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That seems highly unlikely. Do you have a source, or are you sharing speculation as fact?
It’s more likely that APL symbols were included in Unicode as part of its mission to unify all the world’s scripts into single code set.