"a random combination of language features that has no overarching design principle which users could recognize to reduce cognitive load"
Thank you for walking right into my trap.
The reason I like to use APL in arguments about programming language syntax/semantics is that it's "unusual" compared to Algol-derived languages in more than just the syntax.
Matlab/Octave are also array programming languages that in fact are very similar to APL despite having a C-like syntax. It does not make it any easier for people to figure out what Matlab programs do if they don't understand array programming. (And if you don't know linear algebra, then in practice you can't understand most typical Matlab programs at all).
You're implicitly assuming that all programming languages have similar imperative/algorithmic interpretations and differ by syntax. This is a result of a very fundamental epistemological error.
There is no such thing as "programming" that people understand. All programming languages are related to (derived from, or applied to) other domains of knowledge.
If you ignore this fact all the conclusions that you will come to will either apply only to your implicitly assumed domain (which may not fit any problems that people actually want to solve) or will be incoherent.
Thank you for walking right into my trap.
The reason I like to use APL in arguments about programming language syntax/semantics is that it's "unusual" compared to Algol-derived languages in more than just the syntax.
Matlab/Octave are also array programming languages that in fact are very similar to APL despite having a C-like syntax. It does not make it any easier for people to figure out what Matlab programs do if they don't understand array programming. (And if you don't know linear algebra, then in practice you can't understand most typical Matlab programs at all).
You're implicitly assuming that all programming languages have similar imperative/algorithmic interpretations and differ by syntax. This is a result of a very fundamental epistemological error.
There is no such thing as "programming" that people understand. All programming languages are related to (derived from, or applied to) other domains of knowledge.
If you ignore this fact all the conclusions that you will come to will either apply only to your implicitly assumed domain (which may not fit any problems that people actually want to solve) or will be incoherent.