I find mathematical notation to be very read-friendly. Reading a paper from an unfamiliar field can be tough, as knowledge of the standard notation is typically assumed (as is the case when reading code from an unfamiliar programming language).
Mathematical "code" isn't usually meant to be read without the surrounding variable and notation declarations, for example "Let x be ..." or "where • is the ... operation". If those are provided, short variable names and terse notation allow for the intent to be presented clearly, without it being obscured by line-length restrictions and a limited number of generic constructs (eg. for-loops instead of the summation operator).
That said, I'm finding this C implementation of J to be pretty cryptic. Of course, that's no reason to dismiss the J programming language itself.
Mathematical "code" isn't usually meant to be read without the surrounding variable and notation declarations, for example "Let x be ..." or "where • is the ... operation". If those are provided, short variable names and terse notation allow for the intent to be presented clearly, without it being obscured by line-length restrictions and a limited number of generic constructs (eg. for-loops instead of the summation operator).
That said, I'm finding this C implementation of J to be pretty cryptic. Of course, that's no reason to dismiss the J programming language itself.