Co-dfns

You may want to check out the Co-dfns compiler, which is proof positive that APL is a terrific language for doing things like tree manipulations, which is the traditional domain of Lisp and functional programming languages like Haskell. https://github.com/Co-dfns/Co-dfns https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13565743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13638086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13797797

somewhat related: https://github.com/Co-dfns/Co-dfns

If you want APL to be reborn make a version that supports GPU acceleration. That just might give it momentum enough to be used, a language that runs with the native speed of the GPU and that is easy to compose without having to fiddle with the details could be a winner. There is this: https://github.com/Co-dfns/Co-dfns But it's not quite it. As for the word 'deserve': computer languages don't really deserve anything, they get adopted, or not. APL is a beautiful language and it gives me immense pleasure when I 'get' a program but the barrier between 'the problem' and 'the solution' hinges on libraries, eco systems and communities. I suspect that APL's window of opportunity has passed and even if Clojure became 'a modern lisp' and Elixir became 'a modern Erlang' I don't really see a big driver behind 'A modern APL'. What would it do that ca

If something more like APL is within the realm of possibilities, you might want to take a look at the co-dfns compiler (although some of it may be specific to GPU code): https://github.com/Co-dfns/Co-dfns However, for 10^6 cells, even O(n^2) algorithms should run in a few hours at worst, so performance optimizations might not be too critical. I'd suggest first validating your idea with an existing interpreter. Building your own tools is always fun, but can also be a huge distraction that you probably shouldn't take on unless your existing options are not adequate.

What use is Chinese for someone who doesn't read Chinese? The S combinator written like that is perfectly legible and fine for someone who is already familiar with the S Combinator. I don't see the problem there and I don't already grok the S Combinator. I do appreciate writing code under the assumption people working on the code would have some level of prerequisite knowledge. I'm sure you'd get a kick out of Co-dfns [0]. But once you learn to "speak" APL programming it makes a lot more sense. I'd highly recommend, if you have the time, to listen to the author explaining the code for the compiler [1]. [0] https://github.com/Co-dfns/Co-dfns/blob/master/codfns.pdf [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcUWTa16Jc0 / HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13638086