> Structured/imperative programming is a much more natural way to program - at first
When I show my young cousin some APL: +/ 1 2 3 4 10 and she immediately gets why x/ 1 2 3 4 24 I would beg to differ from thinking that a for loop would be more natural.
In fact, someone going from APL to other languages thinks "how can they get anything done?" while someone going to APL from other languages thinks "I can't figure out what they're doing?"
Slashdot Mirror
There's only one thing dead about APL, and I'm sad about that.
It's more of a Mark Twain language: reports are greatly exaggerated.
The National Post ran a story about this very subject this morning (15 Aug 2000)
= /stories/20000815/370726.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f
foo / 1 2 3 4
instead of:
1 foo 2 foo 3 foo 4
Why have an order(N) expression when you could have an order(1) ??
When I show my young cousin some APL:
+/ 1 2 3 4
10
and she immediately gets why
x/ 1 2 3 4
24
I would beg to differ from thinking that a for loop would be more natural.
In fact, someone going from APL to other languages thinks "how can they get anything done?" while someone going to APL from other languages thinks "I can't figure out what they're doing?"
{def}r{is}a plus b
[1] r{is}a+b
{def}
3 plus 4
7
and you don't know J:
plus =: +
3 plus 4
7