> This also because most people dismiss it as line noise / write only programming language
Not so. Anyone who says these things simply does not know APL. It's like saying musical notation is write-only. Sure, if you don't know it reading the darn thing is excruciating. Yet, if you do, you can see music on the page.
What APL is not is a low-skill, low-knowledge language. A casual glance at the language isn't enough to know it. Just as you can't internalize musical notation without dedication, work and experience.
Back in the '80's I used APL professionally for about a decade. From that context, it reads like music. To this day I can read it just fine (though not as quickly). Interestingly enough the same is the case musical notation, which I could read without thinking twenty years ago, when I was studying and playing classical guitar and piano with great regularity.
That said, I would not recommend anyone get serious about APL today. Study with some degree of dedication? Yes, I think that would be of value. Real projects? No. Definitely not.
Not so. Anyone who says these things simply does not know APL. It's like saying musical notation is write-only. Sure, if you don't know it reading the darn thing is excruciating. Yet, if you do, you can see music on the page.
What APL is not is a low-skill, low-knowledge language. A casual glance at the language isn't enough to know it. Just as you can't internalize musical notation without dedication, work and experience.
Back in the '80's I used APL professionally for about a decade. From that context, it reads like music. To this day I can read it just fine (though not as quickly). Interestingly enough the same is the case musical notation, which I could read without thinking twenty years ago, when I was studying and playing classical guitar and piano with great regularity.
That said, I would not recommend anyone get serious about APL today. Study with some degree of dedication? Yes, I think that would be of value. Real projects? No. Definitely not.