Show HN: “Crafting Interpreters” chapter, control flow and Turing-completeness
craftinginterpreters.com
Show HN: “Crafting Interpreters” chapter, control flow and Turing-completeness
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: Show HN: “Crafting Interpreters” chapter, control flow and Turing-completeness
#2This is not a Show HN.
Re: Show HN: “Crafting Interpreters” chapter, control flow and Turing-completeness
#3This is not a Show HN.
It is because it's a substantial project (a book), posted by the author, and free for everyone to 'try out' (i.e. read). It's fair to have different standards for different categories of project.
It's overdoing it a bit to post the same project every few weeks instead of every few months, but that's a separate issue.
Re: Show HN: “Crafting Interpreters” chapter, control flow and Turing-completeness
#4A bit of nitpicking:
"the function to compute the truth value of a given proof" should be "the function that returns the truth value of a given statement" (1st change because it is confusing to use the word compute in two different ways, 2nd change is simply an error correction)
"equivalent in power" should not link to the Church-Turing thesis, as the former is a mathematical statement, proved in any introductory course on computability, and the latter is a philosophical one.
w.r.t. the Neil Gaiman quote: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1407558-misattributed-q...
Re: Show HN: “Crafting Interpreters” chapter, control flow and Turing-completeness
#5The author asks why && and || need different precedence (Unless I misunderstood).
This is because `a && (b || c)` has a different truth table than `(a && b) || c`
Re: Show HN: “Crafting Interpreters” chapter, control flow and Turing-completeness
#6This is not a Show HN.
It is because it's a substantial project (a book), posted by the author, and free for everyone to 'try out' (i.e. read). It's fair to have different standards for different categories of project. It's overdoing it a bit to post the same project every few weeks instead of every few months, but that's a separate issue.
Is the posting of a book chapter different from a blog post? The Show HN rules say blog posts can't be Show HNs. And the reason given is they "can't be tried out".
Re: Show HN: “Crafting Interpreters” chapter, control flow and Turing-completeness
#7I just want to thank Bob for the amazing "Game Programming Patterns" book. I can't recommend it highly enough. And since I'm also interested in compilers, I will buy "Crafting Interpreters” without a hesitation.
Re: Show HN: “Crafting Interpreters” chapter, control flow and Turing-completeness
#8The author asks why && and || need different precedence (Unless I misunderstood). This is because `a && (b || c)` has a different truth table than `(a && b) || c`
That doesn't explain why they would need a different precedence. `a + b - c` is not the same as `a - b + c` even through the precedence's of + and - are the same (in most syntaxes).
Re: Show HN: “Crafting Interpreters” chapter, control flow and Turing-completeness
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is because it's a substantial project (a book), posted by the author, and free for everyone to 'try out' (i.e. read). It's fair to have different standards for different categories of project. It's overdoing it a bit to post the same project every few weeks instead of every few months, but that's a separate issue.
Is the posting of a book chapter different from a blog post? The Show HN rules say blog posts can't be Show HNs. And the reason given is they "can't be tried out".
Yes, it's different. A book (assuming it's a real book and not something slapdash) is a major piece of work. Obviously some of the finer distinctions (e.g. what counts as a book chapter vs. an article) can get pretty arbitrary. But the broader lines aren't. The intent of Show HN is for people to share what they're working on. If we applied the strictest definition, the only thing anyone could easily 'try out' would be web apps, and that's much too narrow.
Re: Show HN: “Crafting Interpreters” chapter, control flow and Turing-completeness
#10The author asks why && and || need different precedence (Unless I misunderstood). This is because `a && (b || c)` has a different truth table than `(a && b) || c`
&& having higher precedence than || makes sense because && is boolean multiplication and || is boolean addition.