The post sort of comments on that by claiming that K's somewhat cryptic-looking operator-style functions are more legible than named counterparts.
> Does giving a K idiom a name make it clearer, or does it obscure what is actually happening?
sum: +/
raze: ,/
ordinal: <<
> The word “ordinal” can mean anything, but the composition << has exactly one meaning. (That one took a while to click, but it was satisfying when it did.)
(Didn’t click for me but I also didn’t spend a while on it, whatever.)
However, one should note that it's not like other functional languages don't have their share of cryptic operators, intuitiveness up to debate of course. Here's a list for Mathematica: https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/25616
At the end of the day this approach doesn't scale very well and skews nicer when you look at very simple examples like +/!100.
> Does giving a K idiom a name make it clearer, or does it obscure what is actually happening?
> The word “ordinal” can mean anything, but the composition << has exactly one meaning. (That one took a while to click, but it was satisfying when it did.)(Didn’t click for me but I also didn’t spend a while on it, whatever.)
However, one should note that it's not like other functional languages don't have their share of cryptic operators, intuitiveness up to debate of course. Here's a list for Mathematica: https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/25616
At the end of the day this approach doesn't scale very well and skews nicer when you look at very simple examples like +/!100.
Anyway, I'll take my sum(range(100)).