10 Years Ago: Editorial from Vector 1.1

Transcribed from the printed issue; not yet reviewed. Read it in the PDF of the issue, page 4

Rerun Bittlestone Editorial from 1.1

Actual Size

EDITORIAL: Back to BASICs?¶

by Robert Bittlestone

This is the first issue of VECTOR: a new journal for a new generation of computer users. Although VECTOR is aimed at those who know and use APL, it’s also very much intended for those who don’t yet but might. So we make no apology for including articles which look at APL from the viewpoint of a non-APLer — including that of the general manager who’d like to know why APL makes sense without necessarily learning it personally.

APL is different from all other computer languages in many ways. These differences are part of what gives the language its strength, but also part of what causes it to be criticised. One of the most interesting points about its users is that there are virtually no cases of reverse conversion. Once you become committed to APL, it seems that you are rarely lured away from it. This kind of loyalty is praiseworthy indeed but also has a dangerous tendency to promote insularity. Events might just be passing APL by.

It’s almost as if there are two kinds of computing. There is the world out there of COBOL and FORTRAN and BASIC and everything else. This world has its bad points — very slow project development and severe design regimentation being two of them. However, it also has its good points, which include a civilised approach to word processing, imaginative use of on-screen colour graphics, the advent of new user-friendly devices such as the “mouse”, the use of a keyboard and character set that is well-nigh universal, and language availability on almost all computers.

Then there is the world of APL. Here we find some bad points too — extremists who confuse complexity with clarity, dreadful legends of undocumented and unsupportable systems, and obscure non-portable techniques required to cope with standard problems such as lower-case output. However, we also find a great many good points, such as elegant structures, powerful and appropriate array handling, flexible and sophisticated intrinsic features and a relational mentality that accelerates design as well as implementation.

I hope I have by now established the notion that VECTOR is not going to be a sycophantic journal. We aim to stimulate by criticism as well as by praise. If we sometimes infuriate, then be sure it is for a purpose. Write us a letter to object: but above all, keep the dialogue going. We have in our hands perhaps the most powerful tool yet devised for harnessing the power of the computer for human needs. So please let’s agree to concentrate on honing its cutting edge, rather than laying out rococo designs for its handle.