> please don't call J an absolute abomination, as I believe it merely calls coders with a different mindset/aesthetic desire to code in it.
Well, it is an abomination. Understanding my position on this might be impossible without significant real-world experience working with APL professionally.
I can offer the following analogy: Let's say I decided to replace musical notation with some kind of ASCII-based notation. Why? Because at the time I do this doing graphical characters on generally available computers is just-about impossible.
In the early days of APL you had to physically modify your computer's display card by swapping out a specially programmed ROM in order to be able to display APL graphic symbols.
Imagine that world, if you could, and imagine I want to display music notation and just can't without making hardware changes. So, I decide to transliterate every symbol into some combination of ASCII characters. Not because it adds to the language in some form. There is no valid argument whatsoever that could support breaking musical notation in such a way. It would purely be a lame attempt to design around, if you will, the limitations of the day.
Now present that ASCII-fied musical notation to an orchestra conductor. What would such a professional say about this "language"? I would not be surprised if they thought it was an abomination.