Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!torn!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!csi!csi.jpl.nasa.gov!sam
From: sam@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Sam Sirlin)
Subject: Re: Notation on the Net
Message-ID: <1993Apr12.161701.27721@csi.jpl.nasa.gov>
Sender: usenet@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Network Noise Transfer Service)
Nntp-Posting-Host: kalessin
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
References:  <9304102000.AA02783@monashee.sfu.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1993 16:17:01 GMT
Lines: 31

In article <9304102000.AA02783@monashee.sfu.ca>, seary@sfu.ca writes:
|>  "There are no words to express the abyss between isolation and having
|> one ally...two is not twice one; two is two thousand times one..."

This is why Fortran is still around. And a major reason why APL isn't
so popular.

|> I think there are two questions here:
|>   Is J notation an acceptable substitute for APL notation on the net?

No, for the reasons you mention. For the scientific world. TeX/fortran
code are the standard of communication (though as you say, articles
come in all different kinds). I think (and have said before), that APL
should have a standard ASCII representation for forums like this and
for exchange of ws. For easy readability I'd recommend a form like
.quad etc. (I have a list). See also J. Mitl{\"o}hner's article in APL
92. Various people posting have made up systems on the fly. Most work
fine for getting a simple point accross. On the other hand a standard
would allow for passing portable executables through an ASCII filter. 

|>   Is J defining the direction that APL should go in future developement?

It's certainly exploring interesting teritory. To my mind the biggest
hinderance to APL language development is the box vs enclose mess. J
and APL2 are on opposite sides of that one. I'm not sure of the status
of the APL extended standard.

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

