🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ROCKWELL.92Apr10230632@so
|> [...]
|> J's style of programming _is_ a bit different than what is
|> traditionally used.  Where it shines is in applicative code:  [...]

Haskell is also vastly different from traditional languages.  Haskell
is a strict functional language - so it shines _MORE_THAN_J_ for those
applications where applicative programming is natural to the problem.

From what I can discover, the present Haskell implementations are also
more efficient than J - and are inherently so.  This is because J is
not purely functional.

|> [...]                                                      If
|> you've a specific problem space, it's usually possible to pick a dozen
|> or so operations which are particularly suited for describing problems
|> in that space.  [Which is what I presume you were talking about when
|> you said it seemed like a fancy calculator.]

No.  I was complaining about the `session' oriented flavor of interaction
with the language.  Instead of designing and writing programs which you 
proof-read before submitting, J encourages the sit-down-and-hack approach
to coding which never leads to reliable programs (of any size) in _ANY_
language.

J. Giles