rak1507

You won't get anything from vapourware salesmen.

It seemingly takes a long time to write good software too, co-dfns is infinity+1 years in progress...

There's a difference between one line and short/terse/elegant.

  {m:(x,x)#til x*x; r:til[x]-x div 2; 2(flip r rotate')/m} 

generates magic squares of odd size, and the method is much clearer. This isn't even golfed as the variables have been left.

There aren't really any complicated arguments being made, so I don't think a proof would be that involved.

You definitely don't need to know any of that background to be able to arrive at the answer. To fully understand everything maybe, but all it takes is:

a = x^1 + x^4 + x^7 + ... = x(1 + x^3 + x^6 + ...) = x/(1-x^3)

a + a^3 + a^5 + ... = a(1 + a^2 + a^4 + ...) = a/(1-a^2)

Substitute + simplify. I don't think this is beyond a (fairly smart) elementary school student.

Why not? All that is really required is knowing 1/(1-x) = 1+x+x^2+... and a bit of algebraic manipulation.

Isn't referencing a source exactly the right way to go about pointing out someone is essentially lying about their background/credentials? I'm surprised people do not care about accuracy.

I remembered it, and it seems like a reasonable assumption that your first experience of APL being so bad would put you off doing any more in the future.

Most of it is boilerplate or written like it is Java, so it is pretty small compared to any real world projects.

To me professional implies production/real world/paid work, not just an unfinished academic project.

The append is the only thing that is O(1), finding the deletion mask is linear (≠ is linear, isn't it?) and the actual deletion is also linear (⌿ is also linear).

       ]runtime -repeat=1s 'v←k1 ⋄ v⌿⍨←v≠2'

 \* Benchmarking "v←k1 ⋄ v⌿⍨←v≠2", repeat=1s
 ┌──────────┬──────────────┐
 │          │(ms)          │
 ├──────────┼──────────────┤
 │CPU (avg):│0.008491847826│
 ├──────────┼──────────────┤
 │Elapsed:  │0.008466372283│
 └──────────┴──────────────┘
       ]runtime -repeat=1s 'v←k2 ⋄ v⌿⍨←v≠2'

 \* Benchmarking "v←k2 ⋄ v⌿⍨←v≠2", repeat=1s
 ┌──────────┬────────────┐
 │          │(ms)        │
 ├──────────┼────────────┤
 │CPU (avg):│0.8333333333│
 ├──────────┼────────────┤
 │Elapsed:  │0.83        │
 └──────────┴────────────┘

The problem is that this isn't a "hashmap" in any meaningful sense, because all the operations are O(n).

When it comes to subjective opinions, what other choice do you have? Your idea of doing studies is interesting but that's not even been done for most languages, yet claiming "python is unreadable" would clearly be laughable.

Either everyone who uses array languages does actually find them readable, or they're all persistently lying for... what reason? And forcing themselves to use something they don't find readable? Why would anyone do that! Especially considering a lot of array language users are hobbyists, who have chosen to use them, it's not like they're forced to.