Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!husc6!ogccse!blake!uw-beaver!uw-june!pardo
From: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: APL one-liners
Message-ID: <9090@june.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 27 Aug 89 19:19:43 GMT
References: <19173@mimsy.UUCP> <207600032@s.cs.uiuc.edu> <19218@mimsy.UUCP> <10731@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> <230@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> <1989Aug26.221107.25606@utzoo.uucp> <1Sb3wq#7YODnT=eric@snark.uu.net>
Reply-To: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
Lines: 14
Disorganization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle

eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>Yes, APL is that powerful. But it's also incredibly slow and a hellish memory
>hog in general, and (most damningly) tends to lead to awkward and inefficient
>formulations for any algorithm even slightly outside the range of those its
>fundamental data types are designed to handle.

Interested parties should take a look at Tim Budd's work on compiling
APL.  It won't solve the awkward/inefficient formulations part of the
story, but might lead to better memory and time behavior.

		;-D on  ( APLicable? )  Pardo
-- 
		    pardo@cs.washington.edu
    {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo