[Jprogramming] Tacit vs. Explicit Paradigm and its Long-Term Impact

[Roger Hui]

> The theorem of Pythagoras is easier in J than in traditional notation
>    +/ &.: *: 3 4   
> 5

Easier still:

   3 +&.*: 4
5

And the notation suggests generalizations into other areas.
http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Under



----- Original Message -----
From: Bo Jacoby <bojacoby at yahoo.dk>
Date: Friday, September 30, 2011 1:19
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Tacit vs. Explicit Paradigm and its Long-Term	Impact
To: Programming forum <programming at jsoftware.com>

> 
> 
> It takes a lot of practice to 'think' in advanced J, but simple 
> J is easy:
>    23+55+9918+44
> 10040
> 
> The theorem of Pythagoras is easier in J than in traditional notation
>    +/ &.: *: 3 4   
> 5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >________________________________
> >Fra: Bill Harris <bill_harris at facilitatedsystems.com>
> >Til: Programming forum <programming at jsoftware.com>
> >Sendt: 5:17 fredag den 30. september 2011 
> >Emne: Re: [Jprogramming] Tacit vs. Explicit Paradigm and its 
> Long-Term Impact
> >
> >On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Raul Miller 
> <rauldmiller at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I do not do so directly, but I often find that I think about 
> problems>> in terms of J, and that that often helps me focus on 
> relevant issues
> >> and useful approaches.
> >>
> >> But shouldn't this discussion be in chat, rather than in 
> programming?>>
> >> Raul,
> >
> >Perhaps, but I left it here because I think it pertains to 
> programming.>
> >I think in words in English or German.  I don't have to puzzle 
> through that;
> >it's become natural enough so that I just do it.  When I read 
> something by
> >an author such as Faulkner or Kant, I may indeed have to think more
> >carefully, but that's not the way I normally write.
> >
> >Would I be better off if I thought analytically in J, too?  
> Would increased
> >skill in that regard give me more analytical strength?
> >
> >If so, would I get to the point that writing a program is to 
> thinking as
> >writing an email is to talking: just setting down "on paper" 
> what was going
> >through my head?  Would that make me a better programmer?  Is 
> that what Ken
> >was talking about when writing about a notation of thought?
> >
> >Feel free to move this to chat or to let it die, as you wish.