Comment by graboid
6 hours ago
I assume that in most array languages, you also create "words" or however you want to call functions, to reuse code. I wonder about a purely aesthetic issue: how does it look to interleave those symbols with user-defined words that by nature will be much, much longer, i.e. "create-log-entry" or "calculate-estimated-revenue".
I never did any real programming in APL, but I studied it over about 2 months. When you get used to the symbols, reading spelled-out words feels like reading in slow motion, or being stuck in molasses.
Most (not all) APL code I've seen uses very short names, often one letter names, for function names. And APL programmers are famous for cataloging "idiom" which are short phrases for common subroutines. In other words, it's best practice to repeat 3- or 4- symbol phrases instead of defining a subroutine.
Of course, there's nothing about an array language that requires using symbols; but for some reason most do.
>Of course, there's nothing about an array language that requires using symbols; but for some reason most do.
The idioms become words and you read them like words, you don't step through each letter of a word when you read it, you recognize the shape. The same thing happens in APL and its ilk, any commonly used sequence is instantly understood as its function without having to parse each individual symbol and what it does.
Yes the symbols in a way are the letters of APL, and the phrases are the words.
It depends on the language and the programmer.
https://github.com/mlochbaum/BQN/blob/master/vm.bqn