All right, let's get started! Since you can run BQN online from the REPL there aren't any real technical preliminaries, but if you'd like to look at nonwebbased options head over to running.md.
In the code blocks shown here, input is highlighted and indented, while output is not colored or indented. To experiment with the code, you can click the ↗️
arrow in the top right corner to open it in the REPL.
2 + 3 5 6 5 1  1.5 ¯1.5
+  Add  
  Negate  Subtract  
¯  \9  Negative 
Shown above are a few arithmetic operations. BQN manages to pass as a normal programming language for three lines so far. That's a big accomplishment for BQN! Earth's a confusing place!
The number of spaces between primitive functions like +
and 
and their arguments doesn't matter: you can use as much or as little as you like. No spaces inside numbers, of course. On that note, there's a special minus sign ¯
for use as part of a number, which you can see in the output ¯1.5
above (since 1.5
consists of a function and a number it's often less convenient to use).
2 × π 6.283185307179586 9 ÷ 2 4.5 ÷ ∞ 0
×  \=  Multiply  
÷  \  Reciprocal  Divide 
π  \p  Pi  
∞  \8  Infinity 
Okay, now BQN looks like normal (gradeschool) mathematics, which is sort of like looking normal. Pi (π
) represents that real famous number and Infinity (∞
) is also part of the number system (the BQN spec allows an implementation to choose its number system, and all existing implementations use doubleprecision floats, like Javascript or Lua). In analogy with the oneargument form of Minus (
) giving the negation of a number, Divide (÷
) with only one argument gives its reciprocal.
A number can be raised to the power of another with Power, written ⋆
. That's a star rather than an asterisk; BQN doesn't use the asterisk symbol. If it's called without a left argument, then ⋆
uses a base of Euler's number e and is called Exponential.
2 ⋆ 3 8 3 ⋆ 2 9 ⋆ 1 # e isn't built in but you can get it this way 2.718281828459045 ⋆ 2.3 9.974182454814718
⋆  \+  Exponential  Power 
√  \_  Square Root  Root 
You could use Power to take square roots and nth roots, but BQN has a primitive √
for this purpose. If no left argument is provided, then it's the Square Root function; with a left argument it's called Root, and raises the right argument to the power of one divided by the left argument.
√ 2 1.414213562373095 3 √ 27 3
On the BQN keyboard, the six functions just given are all typed with the +
and 
keys. To type the nonASCII ones, use a backslash prefix. The three functions Plus, Times, and Power on the plus key are paired with their "reciprocal" versions Minus, Divide, and Square Root on the minus key.
 + # Ordinary keys ÷ × # \ √ ⋆ # \ shift
In case you're wondering, Logarithm—the other inverse of Power—is written ⋆⁼
. We'll see how that works when we introduce ⁼
in the section on 1modifiers.
It's sometimes useful to write programs with more than one function in them. Here is where BQN and any sort of normality part ways.
↗️2×3  5 ¯4 (2×3)  5 1
I bet if you try hard you'll remember how much you hated learning to do exponentiation before multiplication and division before addition and subtraction. Didn't I tell you Earth was a confusing place? BQN treats all functions—not only primitives, but also the ones you define—the same way. They're evaluated from right to left, and parentheses form subexpressions that are evaluated entirely before they can be used.
For a longer example, here's an expression for the volume of a sphere with radius 2.
↗️(4÷3) × π × 2⋆3 33.51032163829112
The evaluation order is diagrammed below, with the function ⋆
at the highest level evaluated first, then ×
below it, and so on. The effect of the parentheses is that ÷
is evaluated before the leftmost ×
.
The online REPL includes a tool to create diagrams like the one shown above. To enable it, click the "explain" button. Then a diagram of your source code will be shown above the result each time you run an expression.
The following rule might help you to internalize this system in addition to identifying when parentheses are needed: an expression never needs to end with a parenthesis, or have two closing parentheses in a row. If it does, at least one set of parentheses can be removed without changing the meaning.
What about functions without a left argument? Let's find an equation with lots of square roots in it… looks good.
↗️√ 3 + 2 × √2 2.414213562373095 1 + √2 2.414213562373095
They are the same, and now you can't say that BQN syntax is the most complicated thing on this particular page! Just to make sure, we can find the difference by subtracting them, but we need to put the left argument of the subtraction in parentheses:
↗️(√3 + 2×√2)  1+√2 0
That's a fairly large expression, so here's another evaluation diagram to check your understanding.
But wait: how do we know that √
in the expressions above uses the oneargument form? Remember that it can also take a left argument. For that matter, how do we know that 
takes two arguments and not just one? Maybe this looks trivial right now: a good enough answer while we're only doing arithmetic is that a function is called with one argument if there is nothing to its left, or another function, and with two arguments otherwise. But it'll get more complicated as we expand the syntax with expressions that can return functions and so on, so it's a good idea to discuss the foundations that will allow us to handle that complexity. In BQN, the way expressions are evaluated—the sequence of function calls and other operations—is determined by the syntactic role of the things it contains. A few rules of roles make sense of the syntax seen so far:
1
and π
are subjects.Perhaps more than you thought! To really get roles, it's important to understand that a role is properly a property of an expression, and not its value. In language implementation terms, roles are used only to parse expressions, giving a syntax tree, but don't dictate what values may appear when the tree is evaluated. So it's possible to have a function with a number role or a number with a function role. The reason this doesn't happen with the numeric literals and primitives we've introduced is that these tokens have a constant value. ×
or ∞
have the same value in any possible program, and so it makes sense that their types and roles should correspond. When we introduce identifiers, we'll see this correspondence break down—and why that's good!
Gosh, that's a lot of arithmetic up there. Maybe adding characters will mix things up a bit? Hang on, you can't add characters, only subtract them… let's back up.
↗️ 'c'
'c'
A character is written with single quotes. As in the C language, it's not the same as a string, which is written with double quotes. There are no character escapes: any source code character between single quotes becomes a character literal, even a newline. Some kinds of arithmetic extend to characters:
↗️'c' + 1 'd' 'h'  'a' 7
But as I blurted earlier, you can't add two characters (and no you can never concatenate things by adding them). It's also an error to negate a character or subtract it from a number. Characters reside in an [intimidating word for simple concept warning] affine space [no relation to those fancy Rust things called linear and affine types], meaning that the following operations are allowed:
Other examples of affine spaces are
Want to shift an uppercase character to lowercase? Affine characters to the rescue:
↗️'K' + 'a''A' 'k'
Convert a digit to its value? Here you go:
↗️'4'  '0' 4
The one thing affine characters won't let you do is find some special "starting character": the main distinguishing factor between a linear and an affine space is that an affine space has no origin. However, for some kinds of programming finding a character's code point is important, so BQN also includes a special literal for the null character, written @
:
'*'  @ 42 @ + 97 'a'
'  Character  
@  Null character 
It's a convenient way to write nonprinting characters without having to include them in your source code: for example @+10
is the newline character.
Addition and subtraction with affine characters have all the same algebraic properties that they do with numbers. One way to see this is to think of values as a combination of "characterness" (0 for numbers and 1 for characters) and either numeric value or code point. Addition and subtraction are done elementwise on these pairs of numbers, and are allowed if the result is a valid value, that is, its characterness is 0 or 1 and its value is a valid code point if the characterness is 1. However, because the space of values is no longer closed under addition and subtraction, certain rearrangements of valid computations might not work, if one of the values produced in the middle isn't legal.
Functions are nice and all, but to really bring us into the space age BQN has a second level of function called modifiers (the space age in this case is when operators were introduced to APL in the early 60s—hey, did you know the second APL conference was held at Goddard Space Flight Center?). While functions apply to subjects, modifiers apply to functions or subjects, and return functions. For example, the 1modifier ˜
modifies one function—that's where the 1 comes from—by swapping the arguments before calling it (Swap), or copying the right argument to the left if there's only one (Self).
2 ˜ 'd' # Subtract from 'b' +˜ 3 # Add to itself 6
This gives us two nice ways to square a number:
↗️×˜ 5 25 2 ⋆˜ 5 25
What's wrong with 5⋆2
? Depends on the context. Because of the way evaluation flows from right to left, it's usually best if the right argument to a function is the one that's being manipulated directly while the left argument is sort of a "control value" that describes how to manipulate it. That way several manipulations can be done in a row without any parentheses required. ⋆
can go either way, but if "squaring" is the operation being done then the left argument is the one being squared, so it's the active value. The Swap modifier allows us to put it on the right instead.
˜  \`  Swap  Self 
⁼  \3  Undo  
˙  \"  Constant 
Another 1modifier is Undo (⁼
). BQN has just enough computer algebra facilities to look like a tool for Neanderthals next to a real computer algebra system, and among them is the ability to invert some primitives. Undo has a specification that fixes results for some functions and modifiers, but allows implementations to go further. In the tutorials we'll stick to the required stuff, which is definitely enough to be practically useful. Starting with a third way to square a number:
√⁼ 5 25
But the most important use for Undo in arithmetic is the logarithm, written ⋆⁼
. That's all a logarithm is: it undoes the Power function! With no left argument ⋆⁼
is the natural logarithm. If there's a left argument then Undo considers it part of the function to be undone. The result in this case is that ⋆⁼
with two arguments is the logarithm of the right argument with base given by the left one.
⋆⁼ 10 2.302585092994046 2 ⋆⁼ 32 # Log base 2 5 2 ⋆ 2 ⋆⁼ 32 32 10 ⋆⁼ 1e4 # Log base 10 of a number in scientific notation 4
Another 1modifier, which at the moment is tremendously useless, is Constant (˙
). It turns its operand into a constant function that always returns the operand (inputs to modifiers are called operands because modificands is just too horrible).
2 3˙ 4 3
Well, I guess it's not pedagogically useless, as it does demonstrate that a modifier can be applied to subjects as well as functions. Even though 3
is a subject, 3˙
is a function, and can be applied to and ignore the two arguments 2
and 4
.
With three examples you may have noticed that 1modifiers tend to cluster at the top of the line. In fact, every primitive 1modifer is a superscript character: we've covered ˜⁼˙
, and the remaining arraybased modifiers ˘¨⌜´˝`
will show up later.
Made it to the last role, the 2modifier (if you think something's been skipped, you're free to call subjects 0modifiers. They don't modify anything. Just not when other people can hear you). To introduce them we'll use Atop (∘
), which composes two functions as in mathematics. The resulting function allows one or two arguments like any BQN function: these are all passed to the function on the right, and the result of that application is passed to the function on the left. So the function on the left is only ever called with one argument.
3 ×˜∘+ 4 # Square of 3 plus 4 49 ∘(×˜) 5 # Negative square of 5 ¯25
∘  \j  Atop 
For example, the first expression 3 ×˜∘+ 4
expands to ×˜ 3 + 4
. Summing up, we get ×˜ 7
, which from the previous section is 7 × 7
, or 49
.
It's past time we covered how the syntax for modifiers works. Remember how I told you you hated learning the order of operations? No? Good. Modifiers bind more tightly than functions, so they are called on their operands before those operands can be used as arguments. As the parentheses above suggest, modifiers associate from left to right, the opposite order as functions. For example, the first expression above is evaluated in the order shown below. First we construct the square function ×˜
, then compose it with +
, and finally apply the result to some arguments.
This ordering is more consistent with the rule that a 1modifier's operand should go to its left. If we tried going from right to left we'd end up with ×(˜∘+)
, which uses ˜
as an operand to ∘
. But a modifier can't be used as an operand. To make it work we'd have to give 1modifiers a higher precedence than 2modifiers.
In fact, the rules for modifiers are exactly the same as those for functions, but reversed. So why is there a distinction between 1 and 2modifiers, when for functions we can look to the left to see whether there's a left argument? The reason is that it's natural to follow a 1modifier by a subject or function that isn't supposed to be its operand. Using an example from the last section, +˜ 3
has a subject to the right of the 1modifier ˜
. Even worse, +˜ ÷ 3
looks just like +∘ ÷ 3
, but it's two functions +˜
and ÷
applied to 3
while the version with Atop is a single function +∘÷
applied to 3
. So the twolayer system of functions and modifiers forces modifiers to have a fixed number of operands even though every function (including those derived by applying modifiers) can be called with one or two arguments.
Remember how 1modifiers are all superscripts? The characters for 2modifiers use a different rule: each contains an unbroken circle (that is, lines might touch it but not go through it). The 2modifiers in BQN are the combinators ∘○⊸⟜⊘
, the sortofcombinators ⌾◶⍟
, and the notatallcombinators ⎉⚇⎊
. And the functions that make that "unbroken" part necessary are written ⌽⍉
. Since every primitive is a function, 1modifier, or 2modifier, you can always tell what type (and role) it has: a superscript is a 1modifier, an unbroken circle makes it a 2modifier, and otherwise it's a function.
The objects we've seen so far are:
Type  Example  Meaning 

Numbers  1.2e3 , π 

Characters  'c' , @ 

Functions  + 
Plus (arithmetic docs) 
 
Minus, Negate  
× 
Times  
÷ 
Divide, Reciprocal  
⋆ 
Power  
√ 
(Square) Root  
⋆⁼ 
Logarithm  
1modifiers  ˜ 
Swap, Self 
⁼ 
Undo  
˙ 
Constant  
2modifiers  ∘ 
Atop 
Except for ⋆⁼
, which is just a particular case of a modifier applied to a function, everything we've seen is either a literal (characters and numbers) or a primitive (functions and modifiers), and has a fixed value. Primitive 1modifiers have superscript characters and 2modifiers contain unbroken circles. Other primitives are always functions.
It's legal to add a number to a character or subtract one character from another, but not to add two characters, negate a character, or subtract it from a number.
BQN's expression grammar is governed by syntactic roles. For literals and primitives, type and syntactic role always match up:
Role  Types 

Subject  Number, Character 
Function  Function 
1modifier  1modifier 
2modifier  2modifier 
So that's a really dumb table but if you put things in a table they suddenly become more important somehow. On another note, here's our precedence table so far:
Precedence  Role  Input roles  Output role  Associativity 

0  () 
Whatever  Same thing  (none) 
1  Modifier  Function, subject  Function  Lefttoright 
2  Function  Subject  Subject  Righttoleft 
Maybe BQN grammar's not all that bad.