apl/windows 
Author Message
 apl/windows

hello, do you know about a place on the web where i can download a
version of apl for windows?



Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 apl/windows

Quote:

>hello, do you know about a place on the web where i can download a
>version of apl for windows?


You can learn about APL200's APL+Win at http://members.aol.com/APL2000,
but this is a commercial product and can not be downloaded free of charge.
There are other commercial APLs available.  Ther is lots of free
APL-related software at      archive.uwaterloo.ca or
watserv1.uwaterloo.ca,  (try  
ftp://archive.uwaterloo.ca/languages/apl/Welcome.html) but I don't think
that this includes any windows-based APL interpretors.  See the FAQ for
this newsgroup (also available ath the warterloo ftp site) for more info.

              -David E. Siegel
               Software Developer, Financial Reporting Software (FRS)



Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 apl/windows


Quote:
> hello, do you know about a place on the web where i can download a
> version of apl for windows?

The new improved apl is available at www.jsoftware.com.

You can get anything from a fully functioning freeware to a
professional system with a lot of extra utilities for a low cost.

The language part is always the same in the freeware version
as in the standard, education and professional versions and
also between platforms it runs on.

There are NO problems with characters in this new improved apl.

It is well tested and highly regarded by the experts.

There are various books for all categories of users.
Everything from the elementary steps of a first time user up to
the most demanding scientists.

I wish everyone a very merry and a happy Christmas.

/Gosi



Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 apl/windows


Quote:

>The new improved apl is available at www.jsoftware.com.

>You can get anything from a fully functioning freeware to a
>professional system with a lot of extra utilities for a low cost.

>The language part is always the same in the freeware version
>as in the standard, education and professional versions and
>also between platforms it runs on.

You should note that the "new improved apl" is in fact J.  J is a
successor language to APL.  It was developed by Ken Iverson, as the
original APL was.  I gather that he (and you and many others) consider it
a large improvement -- maybe you are right.  J certianly uses many of the
same concepts that classic APL does, and even implements many of the same
built-in functions (primitaves in APL).  Nevertheless that are differences
in noatation, syntax, terminology, and philosophy (the latter in the
manuals, at least) which are large enough to make me say that J is a
closely related language, but not the same.  Not that I think that it was
inappropiate to mention J in this context, it wasn't. But you should make
clear to the questioner just what he would be getting with J.

              -David E. Siegel
               Software Developer, Financial Reporting Software (FRS)



Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 apl/windows

Quote:


> > hello, do you know about a place on the web where i can download a
> > version of apl for windows?

> The new improved apl is available at www.jsoftware.com.
>   ........

    remainder of response snipped

Quote:
> /Gosi


Here is a prime example of how the "new" definition of APL that some
people insist on using today - an acronym for Array Processing Languages
(a concept) can be misleading and even deceptive.

Clearly when Kaos inquired about APL, he was referring specifically to
the APL programming language as most of us know it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to come up with a different descriptive name
to classify languages such as APL, J, Nial, K, etc., that doesn't
actually use one of the language names?  No other catagory of languages
does this, for instance there are algorithmic languages and there is
ALGOL, but there is no language named Algorithmic.  I've used SNOBOL,
but I have never used a language named String Manipulation.

Any suggestions for a categoty name that describes these languages but
doesn't use the acronym APL?  Does anyone care?

George Weiss



Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 apl/windows



Quote:


>> > hello, do you know about a place on the web where i can download a
>> > version of apl for windows?

>> The new improved apl is available at www.jsoftware.com.
>>   ........
>    remainder of response snipped

>> /Gosi

>Here is a prime example of how the "new" definition of APL that some
>people insist on using today - an acronym for Array Processing Languages
>(a concept) can be misleading and even deceptive.

>Clearly when Kaos inquired about APL, he was referring specifically to
>the APL programming language as most of us know it.

>Wouldn't it make more sense to come up with a different descriptive name
>to classify languages such as APL, J, Nial, K, etc., that doesn't
>actually use one of the language names?  No other catagory of languages
>does this, for instance there are algorithmic languages and there is
>ALGOL, but there is no language named Algorithmic.  I've used SNOBOL,
>but I have never used a language named String Manipulation.

>Any suggestions for a categoty name that describes these languages but
>doesn't use the acronym APL?  Does anyone care?

>George Weiss

Does anybody care? Yes and no. Is it worth it? Maybe, maybe not.

What is your definition of what constitutes APL, as opposed to (in
alphabetical order) A+, J, K, or Nial? And why do you call the current
implementations with all the Windows facilities by the same name as the
original APL that IBM introduced more than 25 years ago when, clearly,
they are so very different?

... he was referring specifically to the APL programming language as
most of us know it ...

Really? What about the differences between
        IBM's APL
        APL*Plus
        Dyalog APL

Which of these is the "real" APL "as most of us know it"? Admittedly
these very different implementations have a greater similarity to each
other than they do to the other languages that were mentioned, but how
would you call one of them "APL" and not the others?

Perhaps we should look at "human" language. There are languages spoken
across the world that are derived from English, that are called
"English", yet they are clearly different from the English spoken in
England. Shouldn't we call them something else?

Yes, maybe it's confusing to lump all the array processing languages
together under the generic name of APL, but I see no reason to change
things.
--
The Sullivans



Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 apl/windows


Quote:
> You should note that the "new improved apl" is in fact J.
>  Nevertheless that are differences
> in noatation, syntax, terminology, and philosophy (the latter in the
> manuals, at least) which are large enough to make me say that J is a
> closely related language, but not the same.

There is enough differences between various flavours of apls to warrant
some of them different names from the rest. APL2 is an apl too. J could
thus be APLJ. I do not think the name itself should be such a hot issue.
The major difference towards acceptance of APLJ or simply J is the
fact that it does not need special characters. That issue alone is a major
difference that divides J markedly from the rest of the apls. The fact that
it has some differences in syntax is a minor issue to most potential users.

Solving the  character-problem is why J is going to succeed in the marketplace
and is gathering momentum in cases where most other apls have failed because
the potential users gave up trying to get the characters right before they
got {*filter*}ed to the beauty of the language.

Once you get the hang of using the J character representation even
former other apl-brand enthusiasts begin to see the benefit of other
important apl improvements in J and stop worrying about having to
write combination of ascii signs instead of a single apl character.

I for one can now easily think of a single operation in J as one thing
even If it means writing several characters.

And giving names to operations is something I like:

    sum=.+/
   divide=.%
   count=.#
   mean=. sum divide count

   a=.1 2 3 2 5 6 2 1 5

   sum a
27
   count a
9
   mean a
3

This is so simple and natural that it makes you wander why it was not always
like this in the apls I have been using. And by the way I copied this straight from
the execution window of my J session.

/Gosi



Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 apl/windows



Quote:

> Does anybody care? Yes and no. Is it worth it? Maybe, maybe not.

Of course people care.  I'll bet Kaos cares.  I only hope that he's
still reading this thread, and hasn't abandoned APL forever after
reading Gosi's response to his inquiry and taking it seriously.

Quote:
> What is your definition of what constitutes APL, as opposed to (in
> alphabetical order) A+, J, K, or Nial? And why do you call the current
> implementations with all the Windows facilities by the same name as the
> original APL that IBM introduced more than 25 years ago when, clearly,
> they are so very different?

The APL standard was published in 1979.  If you can take a simple
program written in standard APL, e.g.

      {del} R {<-} MEAN X
  [1] R {<-} (+/X) {div} {rho} X
      {del}

and run it on your interpreter, then it's what we call an "APL
interpreter", otherwise it's an interpreter for some other language.

Quote:
> .... he was referring specifically to the APL programming language as
> most of us know it ...

Of course he was, and was most ill-served by Gosi's reply.  Gosi may
think J is better than APL, and he's entitled to his opinion.  Gosi may
also think that bananas taste better than onions, but that doesn't make
it appropriate for him to sell a customer who comes into his store
asking for an onion a banana, telling him that it's really a "new
improved onion".

Quote:
> Really? What about the differences between
>         IBM's APL
>         APL*Plus
>         Dyalog APL

> Which of these is the "real" APL "as most of us know it"? Admittedly
> these very different implementations have a greater similarity to each
> other than they do to the other languages that were mentioned, but how
> would you call one of them "APL" and not the others?

They're all "real" APL.  "All the Windows facilities" notwithstanding, I
can still write programs in a very substantial subset of any of those
dialects that will run unaltered in either of the others.  But despite
what Gosi writes to Kaos, I just can't seem to figure out what subset of
those APLs I can use to produce programs that my J interpreter will run.

Quote:
> Perhaps we should look at "human" language. There are languages spoken
> across the world that are derived from English, that are called
> "English", yet they are clearly different from the English spoken in
> England. Shouldn't we call them something else?

Well, there's British English, and American English, and Australian
English, and lots more, and the reason we call them all "English" is
that anyone who can read and understand one can be expected to read and
understand any of the others, notwithstanding the fact that he may find
some "features" specific to any of them that he won't immediately
recognize.  But calling J "a variety" of APL is analogous to calling
Danish "a variety" of English.  Would you do that to your
English-speaking sister as she was about to leave for a holiday in
Denmark?

Quote:
> Yes, maybe it's confusing to lump all the array processing languages
> together under the generic name of APL, but I see no reason to change
> things.

The generic term for array processing languages is "array processing
languages".  But having the same initials, or the same abbreviation,
doesn't make two different things into the same thing.  I can start a
company specializing in custom assassinations, and call myself
"International Brutal {*filter*}ers", but that doesn't turn me into IBM.

Eric Landau, APL Solutions, Inc.
"Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger" - Abbie Hoffman



Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 apl/windows

How about Array Oriented [Orientated] Languages, abbreviated AOL.

--
James L. Ryan



Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 apl/windows


Quote:


>> You should note that the "new improved apl" is in fact J.

>>  Nevertheless that are differences
>> in noatation, syntax, terminology, and philosophy (the latter in the
>> manuals, at least) which are large enough to make me say that J is a
>> closely related language, but not the same.

>There is enough differences between various flavours of apls to warrant
>some of them different names from the rest. APL2 is an apl too. J could
>thus be APLJ. I do not think the name itself should be such a hot issue.
>The major difference towards acceptance of APLJ or simply J is the
>fact that it does not need special characters. That issue alone is a
major
>difference that divides J markedly from the rest of the apls. The fact
that
>it has some differences in syntax is a minor issue to most potential
users.

<snip>
Gosi then goes on to elaborate some of the features unique to J which, in
his opnion, are improvements over "Classic" APL.  I do not disagree with
his description of them, and I might even be willing to agree that most or
all of them are, in fact improvements.  But I think that he makes my main
point for me -- the degree of differnces amoung Dyalog APL, APL2, APL+,
and other "Classic" APL implementations is mUCH smaller that the
differences between any of them and J (I can't really speak for K, Nial,
etc.)   Obviously, J is related to any of these, much more so than, say
fortran. Equally, no two of these is identical.  So why do I think that it
makes sense to subsume all of these under a single name (APL) but not
include J in that name?  This is a judgement call, but the fact that a
programmer in any one of the APLs could move to another one and keep going
with little or no re-training is one thing.  The fact that much code is
portable from one to another is another reason for the APLs to share a
name.   APL code does not generally port to J, even if you assume an
automatic translater for the character set into the closest equivalent J
token.

Modula2, like J was created as a "2nd try" -- in this case, and attempt to
re-do Pascal and "get it right" in the opnion of the original creator of
Pascal.  Modula2 has many similarities to Pascal, and some differences.
But the differences are large enough that no one speaks of Modula2 as a
dialect of Pascal, even though that language has had many dialects, with
considerable differences between them.  I suggest that the J/APL case is
comparable.

In any case, in the context of the original question, when someone who has
been away from APL for some years asks about where to get implementations
of APL, to point to J without explaining just how different this "APL"
will be from the APL hte questioner knew, seems misleading to me.

              -David E. Siegel
               Software Developer, Financial Reporting Software (FRS)



Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 apl/windows

Keywords:

<snip>

Quote:
>.... he was referring specifically to the APL programming language as
>most of us know it ...

>Really? What about the differences between
>        IBM's APL
>        APL*Plus
>        Dyalog APL

>Which of these is the "real" APL "as most of us know it"? Admittedly
>these very different implementations have a greater similarity to each
>other than they do to the other languages that were mentioned, but how
>would you call one of them "APL" and not the others?

<snip>

The three APL's are all fairly direct implementations of Iverson's
original APL.  The claim that they should be considered 'different'
languages makes as much sense as claiming that a new name is required for
different versions of FORTRAN or BASIC.  French is still French, whether
it's Parisian or Canadian.  J is VERY different.  I have little
difficulty reading code written in any of the above APL's, but never
having had the time to study it, I'll be damned if I can sit down and
read ANY J code.  I think this new fangled use of 'APL' to mean all array
programming languages is an affront to a perfectly good language, and
only adds to the confusion when people who want to discuss 'real' APL get
interrupted by people waving the J banner.

Doug White



Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 apl/windows



Quote:
>How about Array Oriented [Orientated] Languages, abbreviated AOL.

Somebody else thinks that they have the rights to that acronym, so might
object.
--
John Sullivan


Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 33 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3]

 Relevant Pages 

1. apl/windows

2. Searching for an APL Windows font

3. apl/windows [Longish & Rambling!]

4. Shareware APL, APL FAQ, J for Windows

5. I-APL, Vanguard APL, and APL.68000

6. APL*Plus III for Windows

7. APL and Windows-development

8. APL+Win Version 2.0 and Windows XP

9. Dowload free APL for windows

10. APL Plus for Windows

11. Looking for APL for Windows

12. MONDAY, 10 OCT: DYALOG APL FOR WINDOWS

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software