[Jprogramming] Tacit exercise

[Dan Bron]

Roger wrote:
>  So do you stop using vectors in J because there is a
>  limitation on the vector size?

The analogy does not hold water.

According to [1], the limit on vectors is imposed by my physical hardware.  That is a fine and practical limit.   I have never hit
it, and do not foresee hitting it.  Neither does it inhibit my use of the language qua notation (e.g. [2]).

The limit on recursion is imposed by the language in which J is implemented.  That is an artificial and arbitrary limit.  I have hit
it on several occasions, and I can foresee hitting it again (indeed, it is this anxiety that we are discussing).  Furthermore, it
inhibits my use of the language as a notation, simply because I have hit it enough in practice to learn to exclude  $:  from my
thought processes.

I am not unreasonable.  For example,  I do not avoid trains simply because impractically long trains crash J [3].  But I've been
burned often enough by recursion that not only do I avoid it, but I offer warnings about it.  

Now, it is possible that the changes in [3] have rendered this a practical limit, and that my Pavlovian response was acquired before
that improvement.  It would be nice to learn the question is now academic; but I would need to be convinced.  Certainly I've seen
recursion-related problems since then [4],  and not all of them were mine [5,6].  

-Dan

[1]  http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dx003.htm#1
[2]  http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/chat/2009-December/002662.html 
[3]  http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/System/Interpreter/Bugs#longtraincrash 
[4]  http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/System/Interpreter/Bugs#tallstackcrash
[5]  http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/System/Interpreter/Bugs06#head-421860e3461b80ec027da0587b858392bd462b26
[6]  http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2008-January/031400.html