[Duanemclemore]

For me one of the most important things here is the clarity of the problem -maker- at the top. That's the difference between the "Iversonian" symbolic languages (J and K included) and others. It doesn't have the elegance and power of a one line solution, but it's just so clean and comprehensible even without the disciplined commenting. (Although I really think lamp is not a good comment glyph. Sorry about the sacred cow I just took a swipe at fellow array nerds.)

One line solutions are incredible, and tacit is mind-bendingly cool. To use the unique compactness of a glyph-based language as a way to efficiently describe and perform functional programming - then to do that all over arrays!? - whoever had these ideas [0] is utterly genius.

But as someone trying to make time to write a program ground up in APL, knowing that I won't be able to make it just a set of really good one liners, that example is also significant for me.

[0] https://www.jsoftware.com/papers/fork.htm

[lokedhs]

Just because you can write everything on one line without any spaces doesn't mean you should.

You can ofcourse removethe capability to do thatand you'll effectively force the programmer to write more venous code, but then its strength as an interfacing tool is very much reduced.

The Iversonian languages has the capability to write incredibly terse code which is really useful when working interactively. When you do, your code truly is write-only because it isn't even saved. This is the majority of code that at least I write in these languages.

When writing code that goes in a file, you can choose which style you want to use, and I certainly recommend making it a bit less terse in those cases. The Iversonian languages are still going to give you organs that are much shorter than most other languages even even it's written in a verbose style.