any free apl interpreter? for linux?

"Morten Kromberg" <mkrom@dyalog.com> wrote in message
news:fb1bc6db-0645-4c45-b7a9-ea9682c58356@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 22, 10:59 pm, "Jan Karman" <*a...@planet.nl> wrote:
>> I agree fully with most of the statements, except the last one.
>>
>> I think APL-vendors have been making careful terms in their policy,
>> as far as I can see. Free runtime interpreters seem to me crucial
>> for distributing, because "you need to be a domain expert before
>> you contemplate using it" (right you are!!), and if you do you must
>> be able to share your expertise with others in your field, or be able
>> just to provide "systems" (programs) even without awareness of the
>> underlying product.
>
> It is our goal to make our products easier to get started with.
> We're investing in a new book about APL, tutorials and code samples,
> which should all to come "on line" in 2008.
>
> We have also made the Dyalog product very much more accessible than
> it has been in the past. It is free for educational use, and costs
> only £50 for "non-commercial" use (any use except selling products
> based on APL or using APL to run your own business). Several hundred
>licenses have gone out under these programs since they were
>introduced.
>
> If you just want to share techniques and are not charging for
> your work (even indirectly), note that ONE of the ways to license
> Dyalog APL is to pay 2% of your Dyalog-based revenues. If you are
> giving your product away, 2% is not very much :-)
>
> It would be nice if we could just let our customers pay use whatever
> they like, but we have a responsibility to our existing customers to
> make enough money to stay in business (and GROW the business). The
> market is not (yet) big enough for us to be able to give the products
> away and live off "collateral" revenues.
>
> We're working on it / Morten
>

Excellent Morton!

But first of all you have to be in need of it. This is not always in the fields
of number-crunching. I once designed a "sentence generator" in co-operation with
a professor linguistics in Nijmegen (Neth). It had a db for some specific
categories of words (predicates &c.) and the function was just generating almost
correct English sentences, with all kinds of shifts for e.g. inversions, gerunds
and the like - it was then needed to provide texts for phonetic research (too
bad I lost the whole thing on the 'road').

Sometimes there's also an individual use. E.g. when playing FreeCell, I liked to
know how many games I had to win before the score was increasing: I love APL!!

Now I have this story: I recently bought an 20-years-or-so old harpsichord, from
a church-choir. One probably knows the things about collective possession on the
one hand and collective maintenance on the other. It was totally neglected. I'm
now trying to get back the old state and quality (it's an exact copy of the
Baffo harpsichord in the Paris Musée de Musique, built by a reknowned Belgian
harpsichord-maker).

Now, what is the ideal thickness of the strings, that is to say, of each string?
Here's Taylor's formula, in K, that is: (for typing convenience, but which can
be litterally replaced by APL-primitives)

d% f * l) * (T % p * pi % g) ^ 0.5

in which d = thickness
f = frequency in Herz
l = length of string in metres
T = string tension in kg weight
g = acceleration of gravity = 9.8 m/sec²

What is the difference when tuning on a1 = 440 or a1 = 415?

With APL it's easy to find the "ideal" average for re-stringing the entire
instrument at every thinkable frequency.
I love APL!!

i forgot one

p = string material density

"Jan Karman" <*axy*@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:476f7998$0$25477$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl ...
>
> "Morten Kromberg" <mkrom@dyalog.com> wrote in message
> news:fb1bc6db-0645-4c45-b7a9-ea9682c58356@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 10:59 pm, "Jan Karman" <*a...@planet.nl> wrote:
>>> I agree fully with most of the statements, except the last one.
>>>
>>> I think APL-vendors have been making careful terms in their policy,
>>> as far as I can see. Free runtime interpreters seem to me crucial
>>> for distributing, because "you need to be a domain expert before
>>> you contemplate using it" (right you are!!), and if you do you must
>>> be able to share your expertise with others in your field, or be able
>>> just to provide "systems" (programs) even without awareness of the
>>> underlying product.
>>
>> It is our goal to make our products easier to get started with.
>> We're investing in a new book about APL, tutorials and code samples,
>> which should all to come "on line" in 2008.
>>
>> We have also made the Dyalog product very much more accessible than
>> it has been in the past. It is free for educational use, and costs
>> only £50 for "non-commercial" use (any use except selling products
>> based on APL or using APL to run your own business). Several hundred
>>licenses have gone out under these programs since they were
>>introduced.
>>
>> If you just want to share techniques and are not charging for
>> your work (even indirectly), note that ONE of the ways to license
>> Dyalog APL is to pay 2% of your Dyalog-based revenues. If you are
>> giving your product away, 2% is not very much :-)
>>
>> It would be nice if we could just let our customers pay use whatever
>> they like, but we have a responsibility to our existing customers to
>> make enough money to stay in business (and GROW the business). The
>> market is not (yet) big enough for us to be able to give the products
>> away and live off "collateral" revenues.
>>
>> We're working on it / Morten
>>
>
> Excellent Morton!
>
> But first of all you have to be in need of it. This is not always in the
> fields
> of number-crunching. I once designed a "sentence generator" in co-operation
> with
> a professor linguistics in Nijmegen (Neth). It had a db for some specific
> categories of words (predicates &c.) and the function was just generating
> almost
> correct English sentences, with all kinds of shifts for e.g. inversions,
> gerunds
> and the like - it was then needed to provide texts for phonetic research (too
> bad I lost the whole thing on the 'road').
>
> Sometimes there's also an individual use. E.g. when playing FreeCell, I liked
> to
> know how many games I had to win before the score was increasing: I love APL!!
>
> Now I have this story: I recently bought an 20-years-or-so old harpsichord,
> from
> a church-choir. One probably knows the things about collective possession on
> the
> one hand and collective maintenance on the other. It was totally neglected.
> I'm
> now trying to get back the old state and quality (it's an exact copy of the
> Baffo harpsichord in the Paris Musée de Musique, built by a reknowned Belgian
> harpsichord-maker).
>
> Now, what is the ideal thickness of the strings, that is to say, of each
> string?
> Here's Taylor's formula, in K, that is: (for typing convenience, but which can
> be litterally replaced by APL-primitives)
>
> d% f * l) * (T % p * pi % g) ^ 0.5
>
> in which d = thickness
> f = frequency in Herz
> l = length of string in metres
> T = string tension in kg weight
> g = acceleration of gravity = 9.8 m/sec²
>
> What is the difference when tuning on a1 = 440 or a1 = 415?
>
> With APL it's easy to find the "ideal" average for re-stringing the entire
> instrument at every thinkable frequency.
> I love APL!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Morten, apologies for the incorrect spelling of your name ...


"Jan Karman" <*axy*@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:476f7c23$0$25474$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl ...
>i forgot one
>
> p = string material density
>

[snipped]

"Jan Karman" <*axy*@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:476f7998$0$25477$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl ...
>
> "Morten Kromberg" <mkrom@dyalog.com> wrote in message
> news:fb1bc6db-0645-4c45-b7a9-ea9682c58356@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 10:59 pm, "Jan Karman" <*a...@planet.nl> wrote:
> Sometimes there's also an individual use. E.g. when playing FreeCell, I liked
> to
> know how many games I had to win before the score was increasing: I love APL!!
>
> Now I have this story: I recently bought an 20-years-or-so old harpsichord,
> from
> a church-choir. One probably knows the things about collective possession on
> the
> one hand and collective maintenance on the other. It was totally neglected.
> I'm
> now trying to get back the old state and quality (it's an exact copy of the
> Baffo harpsichord in the Paris Musée de Musique, built by a reknowned Belgian
> harpsichord-maker).
>
> Now, what is the ideal thickness of the strings, that is to say, of each
> string?
> Here's Taylor's formula, in K, that is: (for typing convenience, but which can
> be litterally replaced by APL-primitives)
>
> d% f * l) * (T % p * pi % g) ^ 0.5
>
> in which d = thickness
> f = frequency in Herz
> l = length of string in metres
> T = string tension in kg weight
> g = acceleration of gravity = 9.8 m/sec²
>
> What is the difference when tuning on a1 = 440 or a1 = 415?
>
> With APL it's easy to find the "ideal" average for re-stringing the entire
> instrument at every thinkable frequency.
> I love APL!!

While re-stringing I wondered how long the rest of the bundle continuous string
would be. From physics we know that it is hidden in the weight. length x surface
of cross-section = content. Content = weight : specific gravity. So length =
content : surface.
Thanks to the logfile in Dyalog APL I could reproduce the process. I got:
(0.042÷8.4)÷({circle}1)×0.125*2
(42 grams of yellow copper, diameter 0.25 mm) and APL was of much help.

Of course this is a trivial problem & process, but we must never forget that APL
has been designed from the need for a unique & concise means for communicating
processes in math & physics (see Iverson's APL Source Book & Knuth's The Art of
Computer Programming).

ps.
On the first day of this new year I have to apologize for my "gibberish" as in
"reknowned". But since we could spell FISH as GHOTI (Shaw) I may probably
be excused. Besides I couldn't find REKNOWN in the dictionary, since the "k"
has disappeared on the road - presuming that RENOWN has been deducted
from KNOW, not from NOW.

Happy New Year!

Jan Karman wrote:
> ps.
> On the first day of this new year I have to apologize for my "gibberish" as in
> "reknowned". But since we could spell FISH as GHOTI (Shaw) I may probably
> be excused. Besides I couldn't find REKNOWN in the dictionary, since the "k"
> has disappeared on the road - presuming that RENOWN has been deducted
> from KNOW, not from NOW.

gibberish is my native tongue, so if I may add a couple of comments:

"GHOTI" may be phonetically rendered the same way as "FISH", if we
permit the agglutination of a number of out-of-context exceptions, which
isn't quite what you said

according to the Shorter Oxford, RENOWN is derived from OFr
"renon","renom" from "renomer", to make famous

this is clearly a recent import -- the Anglo-Saxons didn't have "slebs",
people who were famous for being "famous" -- no, the Anglo-Saxons had
HEROES!

happy new year to one and all . . . /phil

Excellent Phil,

That's filling a little gap in my knowledge! But then I guess KNOW might have
been derived from NOM as well.
(btw in the same text DEDUCTED rather than DEDUCED)

I learned from my famous brother in law Carlos Gussenhoven - google him up -
that there's more to it. Since then I ceased guessing about origins of words ...


"phil chastney" <phil.hates.spam@amadeus.munged.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nrnfj.151914$uv7.43426@fe05.news.easynews.com ...
> Jan Karman wrote:
> > ps.
>> On the first day of this new year I have to apologize for my "gibberish" as
>> in
>> "reknowned". But since we could spell FISH as GHOTI (Shaw) I may probably
>> be excused. Besides I couldn't find REKNOWN in the dictionary, since the "k"
>> has disappeared on the road - presuming that RENOWN has been deducted
>> from KNOW, not from NOW.
>
> gibberish is my native tongue, so if I may add a couple of comments:
>
> "GHOTI" may be phonetically rendered the same way as "FISH", if we permit the
> agglutination of a number of out-of-context exceptions, which isn't quite what
> you said
>
> according to the Shorter Oxford, RENOWN is derived from OFr "renon","renom"
> from "renomer", to make famous
>
> this is clearly a recent import -- the Anglo-Saxons didn't have "slebs",
> people who were famous for being "famous" -- no, the Anglo-Saxons had
> HEROES!
>
> happy new year to one and all . . . /phil

Jan Karman wrote:
> Excellent Phil,
>
> That's filling a little gap in my knowledge! But then I guess KNOW might have
> been derived from NOM as well.

not according to the Shorter Oxford

"know" can be traced back to OE, OHG and ON,
which makes it Germanic rather than Romantic,
and it makes Old Norway the source of all knowledge

a few years ago, somebody sent me a postcard by way of a thank-you note,
and scribbled round the edge of this thing was, "Do you know the
difference between 'assume' and 'presume'? A Russian just asked me, and
I don't know the answer" -- that one plagued me for weeks, so nowadays
I tend to notice whether those words have been used correctly

not that it matters a lot . . . /phil

there's a lot to know, Phil ...

"phil chastney" <phil.hates.spam@amadeus.munged.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wOufj.295873$WF3.225183@fe06.news.easynews.co m...
> Jan Karman wrote:
>> Excellent Phil,
>>
>> That's filling a little gap in my knowledge! But then I guess KNOW might have
>> been derived from NOM as well.
>
> not according to the Shorter Oxford
>
> "know" can be traced back to OE, OHG and ON,
> which makes it Germanic rather than Romantic,
> and it makes Old Norway the source of all knowledge
>
> a few years ago, somebody sent me a postcard by way of a thank-you note, and
> scribbled round the edge of this thing was, "Do you know the difference
> between 'assume' and 'presume'? A Russian just asked me, and I don't know the
> answer" -- that one plagued me for weeks, so nowadays I tend to notice
> whether those words have been used correctly
>
> not that it matters a lot . . . /phil

"phil chastney" <phil.hates.spam@amadeus.munged.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nrnfj.151914$uv7.43426@fe05.news.easynews.com ...
> Jan Karman wrote:
> > ps.
>> On the first day of this new year I have to apologize for my "gibberish" as
>> in
[...]

>
> this is clearly a recent import -- the Anglo-Saxons didn't have "slebs",
> people who were famous for being "famous" -- no, the Anglo-Saxons had
> HEROES!
>

Funny. Last night I heard in a dialogue that HEROES are the mediocre type not
much bothering about creativity ... (it was in a movie or series on Queen
Victoria, put in the mouth of Disraëli).

Jan Karman wrote:
> "phil chastney" <phil.hates.spam@amadeus.munged.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:nrnfj.151914$uv7.43426@fe05.news.easynews.com ...
>> Jan Karman wrote:
>> > ps.
>>> On the first day of this new year I have to apologize for my "gibberish" as
>>> in
> [...]
>
>> this is clearly a recent import -- the Anglo-Saxons didn't have "slebs",
>> people who were famous for being "famous" -- no, the Anglo-Saxons had
>> HEROES!
>>
>
> Funny. Last night I heard in a dialogue that HEROES are the mediocre type not
> much bothering about creativity ... (it was in a movie or series on Queen
> Victoria, put in the mouth of Disraëli).

creativity? that's for wimps and girlies...

true -- I can't think of a single instance of creativity in any of the
heroic legends, but I'll bet Disraeli was careful where he made that
sort of remark about mediocrity -- in the winged armchair at his
gentleman's club, waited on by flunkeys, surrounded by sycophants --
not out there wielding his sword at threatening dragons, like a REAL MAN
would

whence cometh those double dots? . . . /phil