RE: Lack of software abstractions

dydre wrote:
> 1.  The notation J layers many things in unique ways and
> they are not completely documented.

I don't know what this means.

(I know what 'needs to be documented' would mean, but I
do not know how to distinguish between contexts where the
above is an issue and where it is not an issue.)

> 2.  Reading requires recognition and many people give up
> when they can't recognize things.

Agreed.  This is an issue in any context that involves
learning.

> 3.  Mapping a symbol that you think you recognize to
> the wrong concept can cause misunderstanding and confusion.

Again, this is true.  This tends to be far more a problem
with natural languages (like English) than computer languages
(like J).  Then again, people tend to have far more exposure
to natural languages which tends to balance things out.

>  (c)  Primitives of APL did allow a level of abstraction that did  
> simplify underlying complexity.  J permits you to compress complex  
> ideas but it is not necessarily by simplifying an underlying
> complexity.

I don't know what this means.

-- 
Raul