Hi,
I suppose 'real APL; does not mean apl2. If I may quote you (Feb.
5, 2017):
"is this apl2 (which was ibm's second failed attempt to push apl) or gnuapl?"
What I don't quite understand is this: if you were so happy with your "real apl" for 46 years,
why are you using GNU APL then? It was clear from day 1 that GNU APL will be an apl2
interpreter and not an apl interpreter. And that I, like it not not, consider IBM compatibility
as a rather valuable property.
And the "things that are wrong" seem to be mainly things that IBM implemented differently than
you believe they should have been implementing them.
/// Jürgen
all the apl2 based modifications would have to be taken out ... it has really become blake-apl2
i have tried to bring up things that are wrong but get ignored - i have been using 'real apl' for over 46 years
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:47:39 -0500
Peter Teeson <address@hidden> wrote:
No offence intended but
There seems to me to be a whole lot of accretion in the non language part of GNU APL.
Useful as it may be to certain people I don’t think it’s in the elegant spirit of APL.
What used to be a nice clean, simple and easily comprehended project is now
suffering from encrustations that everyone is burdened with.
Personally it would be nice to have a basic package that is simply the interpreter, quad fns and the system commands
leaving the rest of the detritus in add-on packages of some form.
Just my grumpy 80-year old man's opinion…<grumble grumble>
with respect….
Peter
|