So the sentence served its purpose and saved you the frustration :)
I appreciate the features of these languages (J, K, and Klong), but I do not understand the reason why they have such a hard to read syntax. I think it is a pity; I could see myself using it otherwise. Maybe it is by design, but I do not understand it.
Here is a gentle start: https://xpqz.github.io/kbook/Introduction.html
Thanks! So here is an explanation:
> The same baseless accusations of “unreadable”, “write-only” and “impossible to learn” are leveled at all Iversonian languages, k included.
I argue that these accusations are far from baseless. Sure, I can not cite a study, but neither does he. So I assume it's word against word.
> Readability is a property of the reader, not the language.
In my view this is an oversimplification. Having a steep learning curve clearly prevents adoption. The language design actively contributes to the problem. I'm just not sure on why. Could it be that the authors of these languages do not _want_ them to be used by others?
Search for "teaching" at https://aplwiki.com/wiki/APL_conference. I count at least five papers about teaching non-APL topics using APL. The language is not only possible to read, it's designed for it.
You could say you enjoy toodling on the piano but don’t understand why reading music has to be so hard. It doesn’t _stay_ hard and it opens up new avenues.
For me personally, the sentence could be shortened to just: "If you try to use it, you will only get frustrated."