Re: Lack of software abstractions

Hello Joe;

> Now you're talking Chris.  Possible new changes to the IDE along the lines
you have suggested are very exciting.  I'm not very good when it comes to
using J in (what I consider) complex ways (so what is trivial for Randy,
may not be so trivial for the average J user) and  so I salute (and thank)
other J users that are (and that have been so generous in sharing their
expertise with the greater J community).  My goal has been to monitor their
messages and studiously write down the little gems that seem to flow out of
this forum and the online J wiki.
>

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I do recall that my usage of trivial
was in stating something of the form:

    If we have X, then X+1 will be trivial.

X, of course, is not necessarily trivial.

> But changes to the IDE are a different matter.  That's my barometer on
productivity and that's where the excitement is for me when it comes to new
changes in J (and what determines for me which tool is best for any data
processing jobs that I may face).  The J wizards (expert users) won't
benefit as much, but the majority of common everyday J programmers (like me)
will benefit from new IDE improvements designed to require less typing, less
remembering, less organizing, less effort, improved application packaging,
improved debugging, improved script integration.
>
 /Joe

The thing about IDE improvements is that everyone wants different ones.
Personally, I have applied the advice of (I dunno, Alan Kay?):

    If you don't like the news, go make your own.

J, being so good at aiding development, should shine at IDE development;
then one can get all Toyota on your a$$.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald   | APL: If you can say it, it's done.. (ram)
|/\| ramacd-Ec9gIrrHw6csA/PxXw9srA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  |
|\ |                     | The only real problem with APL is that
BSc(Math) UNBF'83        | it is "still ahead of its time."
Sapere Aude              |     - Morten Kromberg
Natural Born APL'er      | Demo website: http://156.34.82.187/
-----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }-

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Tibollo" <JTibollo-3+VwCW+EVOqLZvtRG1ECog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "General forum" <general-eCoxsOKuxbJl57MIdRCFDg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 4:15 AM
Subject: RE: [Jgeneral] Lack of software abstractions

>
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: general-bounces-eCoxsOKuxbJl57MIdRCFDg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of 
> Chris Burke
> Sent: Fri 26/01/2007 10:51 PM
> To: General forum
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Lack of software abstractions
>
>
>
> Dan Bron wrote:
> > I think I understand his point now, and I think you may have
misunderstood it.
> >
> > Have you ever used the Dyalog IDE?  It's breathtaking.  Gorgeous.
Sublime.
> >
> > I think what Joe (and many of the rest of us!) want is something akin to
that, and he does not care about how it actually stores
> > code.  Imagine a J IDE similar to Dyalog's, but which writes functions
to script files.  Not as big, ugly blobs, but in properly
> > formatted, nicely laid-out script files.
> >
> > The scripts would not be any different than they are now.  In
particular, they could be edited by any editor, shared via email,
> > cut, copied, pasted, rearranged, reloaded, etc.  A J script edited by
Magic J IDE v2.0 would be indistinguishable from one edited
> > in notepad, or in the current J IDE.
> >
> > The difference would be in the IDE.  For example, if I typed a function
name into the session, and double clicked it, or put my
> > cursor over it and pressed SHIFT+Enter, a small window could pop up with
the function's definition, which I could edit.  Then I'd
> > press Esc and the new definition would be loaded into the session and
simultaneously written (nicely) into the proper place in a
> > script file.
> >
> > Alternatively, Shift+Enter could do some of the magic that CTRL+F1 and
edit_z_  do:  find the script which defined the cursor'd
> > name, open it in a new script window, and put the cursor on the first
line of its definition.  Then I could edit-edit-edit, CTRL+W
> > (or some version of CTRL+W which puts focus back in the session window,
like F12 does), and merrrily go on my way with the new
> > version of the name.
> >
> > ...
>
> No problem with the better IDE - what we have can always be improved. I
> am not a big fan of Dyalog's, but perhaps I am too used to our own.
>
> I do like your key idea of pointing to a definition and clicking to
> bring up its definition for editing, and this is worth exploring
> further. The edit verb was originally designed for this, but I no longer
> use it since the connection between the definition and the original
> script is lost when an application is built. If we could track this
> easily, then it would be simple to add some edit magic. Perhaps
> something like:
>
> - when a script is built by PM, it inserts comment tags that would
> enable magic to trace back the original source script. Whether this is
> enabled would be part of the project configuration.
>
> - if no such tags are in the script, magic opens the script like the
> current edit.
>
> Your suggestion for a smarter script editor is much along the lines of
> the form editor. This reads a script, and parses it so it can be edited
> in a GUI, and then writes out the nicely formatted definitions
> afterwards. The only real drawback is that scripts are free-form, and it
> is not always obvious exactly where a name gets defined; but this is a
> minor problem.
>
> I don't see us moving away from scripts, and I think improvements to the
> IDE will largely be improvements to the way we handle scripts, such as
> text folding, name cross-referencing, better syntax highlighting,
> formatting, version comparison etc. There is a lot that can be done in
> this area (and much can be contributed by the user group). We have done
> some work on rewriting the script window editor (e.g. so we can have
> color coding in Java), but this is currently on the back burner.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm