Poll for experienced k/q programmers:1. Does k dominate your code vs q?2. Do you prefer k to q in general?3. Would you recommend a new user focus on k rather than q?In the spirit of k, please present responses as a boolean vector oflength 3 (e.g., 111b).
User-Agent: G2/1.0X-Google-Token: Wcw5wgwAAAArmeBPfyfFOvb7OBy2ZaYtX-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.12) Gecko/2009070811 Ubuntu/9.04 (jaunty) Firefox/3.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)Message-ID: <4c09ddfe-c029-4e4a-9dd8-2d1eaad26922@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>Subject: Re: poll: k|qFrom: “jake.mccrary” To: “Kdb+ Personal Developers” X-Google-Approved: simon.garland@gmail.com via web at 2009-08-01 07:35:53000bOn Jul 31, 1:55?pm, “k.os.tao” <k.os…> wrote:> Poll for experienced k/q programmers:>> 1. Does k dominate your code vs q?> 2. Do you prefer k to q in general?> 3. Would you recommend a new user focus on k rather than q?>> In the spirit of k, please present responses as a boolean vector of> length 3 (e.g., 111b).</k.os…>
Kx recommends q over k. I write all new code in q and only write k when modifying k existing k code. New users should focus on q as it’s more readable and easier to learn (in my opinion).
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)On Aug 1, 2009, at 2:55 AM, k.os.tao wrote:> Poll for experienced k/q programmers:>> 1. Does k dominate your code vs q?> 2. Do you prefer k to q in general?> 3. Would you recommend a new user focus on k rather than q?>> In the spirit of k, please present responses as a boolean vector of> length 3 (e.g., 111b).000bi mostly treat k as a puzzle and an intellectual exerciseq is much more suited to large-scale development (in q terms, i.e. anything more than a couple lines)occasionally i’ll write small utility functions in k, since they sometimes seem more elegant that waye.g., filter:{y@&x@y} instead of {y where x y}
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)011bNobody I know of apart from Arthur writes k nowadays _professionally_Which is kind of shame because it is ingenious - and has underappreciated advantages over qI would still recommend starting with k over q : it is fun, I think that is the easier way to learn both (or maybe just because I learnt it that way), and you won’t be so frightened if you meet an error message and eventually has to look at q.k. Not many share my opinion regarding this though. AttilaOn 31 Jul 2009, at 20:48, jake.mccrary wrote:>> 000b>> On Jul 31, 1:55 pm, “k.os.tao” <k.os…> wrote:>> Poll for experienced k/q programmers:>>>> 1. Does k dominate your code vs q?>> 2. Do you prefer k to q in general?>> 3. Would you recommend a new user focus on k rather than q?>>>> In the spirit of k, please present responses as a boolean vector of>> length 3 (e.g., 111b).>> ></k.os…>
Hi,
this poll is unclear, because the answer depends on “endianity” ;-)
Better like so:
?? Poll for experienced k/q programmers:
?? Does k dominate your code vs q??? ? ??? 001 means true; 000 means false
?? Do you prefer k to q in general??? ? ??? ? 010 means true; 000 means false
?? Would you recommend a new user focus on k rather than q? 100 means true; 000 means false
?? The answer would be the ORed result
2009/7/31 k.os.tao <k.os.tao@gmail.com>
Poll for experienced k/q programmers:
- Does k dominate your code vs q?
- Do you prefer k to q in general?
- Would you recommend a new user focus on k rather than q?
In the spirit of k, please present responses as a boolean vector of
length 3 (e.g., 111b).
Attila,
What do you think are the under appreciated advantages?
Tim
terseness, simpleness, regularityOn 1 Aug 2009, at 15:07, Tim Rieder wrote:> Attila,>> What do you think are the under appreciated advantages?>> Tim>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Attila Vrabecz <attila.vrabecz> > wrote:>> 011b>> Nobody I know of apart from Arthur writes k nowadays professionally> Which is kind of shame because it is ingenious - and has> underappreciated advantages over q> I would still recommend starting with k over q : it is fun, I think> that is the easier way to learn both (or maybe just because I learnt> it that way), and you won’t be so frightened if you meet an error> message and eventually has to look at q.k. Not many share my opinion> regarding this though.> Attila> On 31 Jul 2009, at 20:48, jake.mccrary wrote:>> >> > 000b> >> > On Jul 31, 1:55 pm, “k.os.tao” <k.os…> wrote:> >> Poll for experienced k/q programmers:> >>> >> 1. Does k dominate your code vs q?> >> 2. Do you prefer k to q in general?> >> 3. Would you recommend a new user focus on k rather than q?> >>> >> In the spirit of k, please present responses as a boolean vector of> >> length 3 (e.g., 111b).> >> > >>>>>>> >–Apple-Mail-2-258193375Content-Type: text/htmlterseness, simpleness, regularity
On 1 Aug 2009, at 15:07, Tim Rieder wrote:
Attila,
What do you think are the under appreciated advantages?
TimOn Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Attila Vrabecz <attila.vrabecz@gmail.com> wrote:
011b
Nobody I know of apart from Arthur writes k nowadays _professionally_
Which is kind of shame because it is ingenious - and has
underappreciated advantages over q
I would still recommend starting with k over q : it is fun, I think
that is the easier way to learn both (or maybe just because I learnt
it that way), and you won't be so frightened if you meet an error
message and eventually has to look at q.k. Not many share my opinion
regarding this though.
Attila
On 31 Jul 2009, at 20:48, jake.mccrary wrote:
>
> 000b
>
> On Jul 31, 1:55 pm, "k.os.tao" <k.os....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Poll for experienced k/q programmers:
>>
>> 1. Does k dominate your code vs q?
>> 2. Do you prefer k to q in general?
>> 3. Would you recommend a new user focus on k rather than q?
>>
>> In the spirit of k, please present responses as a boolean vector of
>> length 3 (e.g., 111b).
>
> >
--Apple-Mail-2-258193375--