Re:On the foolishness of “natural language programming” (1979)
by userbinator on Sunday September 20, 2020 @01:09AM
(#24532027)
There are APL variants like J and K, which use ASCII and have enjoyed limited success too; but those who do use the language tend to be very good at at.
I guess people just don't really want to learn a new language, which is what APL and its derivatives really are.
Re:On the foolishness of “natural language programming” (1979)
by acdha on Sunday September 20, 2020 @11:24AM
(#24534533)
That assertion seems highly dubious to me given how many other new languages have been created and learned in the meantime. It would be more interesting to look at why people felt those languages were more appealing - some of that has obvious financial draws (Java, JavaScript, C#, etc.) but nobody picked learning e.g. Haskell because it was the easiest option.
Comparing APL's popularity to Python's and assuming the difference is due to solely to an embrace of symbolics for expression does not take into account the many differences of the languages.
APL had barriers to entry that Python didn't; for example, APL cost money (you had to license it from IBM) and you needed a special keyboard. Python didn't. (Later versions of APL didn't require a license or keyboard).
APL was good at numbers, poor at I/O (I'm generalizing). I wouldn't want to write a webserver in APL; I'd use Python, but if I was doing matrix multiplication, I'd use APL. Or maybe a tool like Octave or Matlab.