121–128 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't true obviously. It's like saying lists aren't a programming language.
From the guy who created JSON: >JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) is a lightweight data-interchange format. From Wikipedia: >JSON is an open standard file format and data interchange format Now tell me how JSON is a programming language.
I would like to add that just like in our universe, in Haskell entropy only ever increases and never goes down. I.E., add more functionality to your program and the complexity will go up. This is true for all programming languages of course, but in my limited experience larger Haskell programs seem to become exponentially more complex.
The key is to not write large Haskell programs. Write many Haskell libraries and compose them. This scales infinitely and is an excellent way to build software. But it's also hard to do and takes good & deliberate technical leadership if you want to get 50+ engineers doing it.
But at the code level - nobody cares at all. It’s like we are writing literature, not building tools.
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I should wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the Haskell world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly cre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
f :: Integer -> Boolean g f n = if (f n) then (g f (n+1)) else (is_it_reachable) Will it ever terminate (or insert any other interesting property that you wish) with f = collatz? I know this is the atomic bomb case, but you can actually quite easily increase the complexity in realistic programs by just a few compositions, it doesn’t take much.
Here you are defining a new function, not composing two functions. But if you consider a program implementation of pure functions, this might not be true; for example f and g use a quantity of RAM, but the RAM used by f o g exceeds your computer RAM and thus explodes. Or, if we work with objects, some values (e.g. internal values of the object, or context values) may be changed that make the final result of f o g dif…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 3-dimensional space you can only access O(n^3) locations in n steps (where a step corresponds to the distance between adjacent locations).
You can access infinite locations. Nothing stops you from moving diagonally in an arbitrary angle, move forward and then backwards. I'd hoped my extravagant uses of > made that clear. Reality is practically continuous not discrete.
Do we actually know this?
So uh... When are we rewriting this in Rust?
God writes 4D X-L