Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv1!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!csi!sam
From: sam@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Sam Sirlin)
Subject: Re: APL2 question
Message-ID: <1992Mar16.173450.1067@csi.jpl.nasa.gov>
Originator: sam@kalessin
Sender: usenet@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Network Noise Transfer Service)
Nntp-Posting-Host: kalessin
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
References: <9203152248.AA24898@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <728@kepler1.rentec.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 17:34:50 GMT
Lines: 33


In article <728@kepler1.rentec.com>, andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:
|> which gives you the answer. This is one of my own idioms, and I like to use
|> it to prove that APLers can't really _read_ good APL. (Though they claim
|> that they can, I have a bunch of these little stumpers which I got to
|> test on some of the better APL programmers during my stint at Morgan Stanley.)
It's hard to read at a glance an algorithm that would take up a page
or two in some Fortran derivative.

|> find the common values. In a language which (unlike APL or J) allowed sensible
|> flow of control, the obvious loop-based solution is at least four times faster,
|> uses half as much storage, and is obvious. (By the way I'm giving APL a break
|> by not including interpretive overhead in this estimate. In the real world
|> C would run an order of magnitude faster than the APL2.)

Well, you can always compile APL. Regarding flow control, I agree. I
saw an article in the last conference proceedings (91) about it (I
forget the author - sorry!) that used dyadic goto. I was very
impressed and plan to put it in the compiler someday...

|> P.S. It's good to see an APL question in com.lang.apl again. I think J is a 
|> different language and by now it probably deserves its own group.

Hmm. Semantics. I think APL2 is a different language as well, and for
those of us who don't have an implementation, it looks pretty cryptic!
(though the familiar symbols make it look more familiar than J). I
don't think we need to split the group until the trafic becomes MUCH
more intense. I guess you'll just have to suffer (;-).

-- 
Sam Sirlin
Jet Propulsion Laboratory         sam@kalessin.jpl.nasa.gov

