Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!uflorida!gatech!purdue!haven!ni.umd.edu!uc780.umd.edu!cs450a03 From: cs450a03@uc780.umd.edu Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl Subject: RE: WANTED: a way to sort array so each column i Message-ID: <17APR91.20220134@uc780.umd.edu> Date: 17 Apr 91 20:22:01 GMT References: <31931@usc> <13APR91.22583472@uc780.umd.edu> Sender: usenet@ni.umd.edu (USENET News System) Organization: The University of Maryland University College Lines: 30 Ethyn Weg writes; >Underlying my original question regarding the APL2 method is the sense >that you often need auxiliary functions where in J you can do without. >Is this a general feeling? Now often you need a subroutine that in J >can be part of a main verb, not cluttering the workspace. J has a number of design features that allow you to create and use auxiliary functions in-place. Not the least of which is indexing as a function, rather than a syntactic special case. I'd say that in APL2, functions are second rate objects (and operators are third rate). > It pleases me aesthetically that you can work this way. I wonder if >using internal or external subroutines have different implications >regarding performance. By external subroutines do you mean functions bound to a name, as opposed to functions defined dynamically? I think if the problem you are working on can be expressed more concisely, you'd probably also see performance implications. (I'm thinking specifically of language manipulation routines, such as symbolic math routines and partial evaluators such as compilers). Just an opinion though, at this stage. Raul Rockwell