HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
44% Positive
Analyzed from 514 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#apl#language#languages#fortran#every#made#lisp#array#bit#troubles

Discussion (12 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
"I met a traveler from an antique land..."
Both Lisp and array language programmers are sadly somewhat rare.
Looks like most modern languages have more in common with Lisp than FORTRAN, besides the syntax.
:3
However, I disagree with some points made. In particular, this one:
> Some people say the most important issue at hand is to improve the data structures of APL. Others say what APL needs is a little bit of Franglais, which in our terms is APLGOL. “If APL only had the while-statement, or the if-then-else, or the for-statement, it would become such a perfect language.” That’s ridiculous. And it’s silly to say that if APL had arrays of arrays, all of our troubles would disappears. In point of fact, what will happen is that the amount of troubles would just grow almost exponentially if that happened.
This turned out to be untrue. And the resistance in the community to do this is partly what lead to its loss of popularity.
Modern array languages, and indeed most APL implementations, have these things and they did not create troubles. In fact, it made them practical and easier to learn, because it allows users to use the style that suits the problem at hand the best. And in some cases, a pure array solution is just not appropriate.
Yet, even as the 90's rolled around you could find people writing articles in Quote Quad arguing that suggestions to add structured programming constructs to APL was somehow going against the spirit of the language.
Kinda sad it took 50 years for that attitude to change.
> Transcription of a talk given by Professor Perlis at the APL’78 Conference held at Foothill College, Los Altos, CA. on 1978-03-29.