221–230 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe... https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/python-map-function/ The whole point of map is that it does the iteration for you and you pass it a function. Iteration is literally the reason it exists.
map predates javascript and python by decades
Earlier quoted context omitted.
map predates javascript and python by decades
What does that have to do with the fact that map iterates over a data structure?
Map doesn't simply iterate (that would be forEach), it creates another piece of information containing f(a) for all a in the input sequence.
What would iterating over a tree yields ? what would mapping over a tree yields ? how do you define the latter ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that have to do with the fact that map iterates over a data structure?
You can't rely on how these languages describe mapping. Map doesn't simply iterate (that would be forEach), it creates another piece of information containing f(a) for all a in the input sequence. What would iterating over a tree yields ? what would mapping over a tree yields ? how do you define the latter ?
Says who? You didn't back this claim up with anything.
Map doesn't simply iterate
No one has ever said it 'only' iterates, you hallucinated this claim. The whole point that I've made is that just because a language like haskell uses recursion for iteration, it doesn't mean iteration and recursion are the same thing or that things that iterate have anything to do with recursion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't rely on how these languages describe mapping. Map doesn't simply iterate (that would be forEach), it creates another piece of information containing f(a) for all a in the input sequence. What would iterating over a tree yields ? what would mapping over a tree yields ? how do you define the latter ?
You can't rely on how these languages describe mapping. Says who? You didn't back this claim up with anything. Map doesn't simply iterate No one has ever said it 'only' iterates, you hallucinated this claim. The whole point that I've made is that just because a language like haskell uses recursion for iteration, it doesn't mean iteration and recursion are the same thing or that things that iterate have anything to do…
Why would I need to back that up ?
> No one has ever said it 'only' iterates, you hallucinated this claim. The whole point that I've made is that just because a language like haskell uses recursion for iteration, it doesn't mean iteration and recursion are the same thing or that things that iterate have anything to do with recursion.
Why the mention of haskell all the time ? I'm not even talking about statically typed languages here.
The original conversation was about the intellectual benefits of recursion, not iteration == recursion. Recursion is a way to think about problems that I find more general, precise, creative and economical I tried to convey why, I'm not the most precise but this is getting nowhere. Feel free to enjoy your life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but that is error prone and more complex. A compiler can make those same transformations. I'd argue that the properly lazy programmer is the one using recursion. To get even lazier, one should move into relational algebra.
Meh, or just choose a documented data structure that supports your problem scope. If it takes longer than 1 coffee, than someone is usually approaching things the wrong way... Have to think "minimum effort" here... ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't rely on how these languages describe mapping. Says who? You didn't back this claim up with anything. Map doesn't simply iterate No one has ever said it 'only' iterates, you hallucinated this claim. The whole point that I've made is that just because a language like haskell uses recursion for iteration, it doesn't mean iteration and recursion are the same thing or that things that iterate have anything to do…
> Says who? You didn't back this claim up with anything. Why would I need to back that up ? > No one has ever said it 'only' iterates, you hallucinated this claim. The whole point that I've made is that just because a language like haskell uses recursion for iteration, it doesn't mean iteration and recursion are the same thing or that things that iterate have anything to do with recursion. Why the mention of haskell…
Why do you need to back up the things you say? Because if someone believes anything without an explanation then they don't know what's true.
Why the mention of haskell all the time ?
Because you wrote haskell -> foldl f z (x:xs) = foldl f (f z x) xs
The original conversation was about the intellectual benefits of recursion
No, you made very abstract and bizarre claims like recursion is compressing the domain so small it eats itself, it's creating self sustaining computing blocks, and use tiny function that will thread themselves as see fit.
Statements like this that aren't even really coherent sentences, let alone explainable, are the types of things that happen when no one asks anyone to back up what they say. Evangelism starts to bleed into religion and anyone questioning the grandiose hyperbole is dismissed as an adversary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but at that point you might as well use Malloc and Realloc. IIRC, the first edition of the classic K&R C book, The C Programming Language, had an example of creating a memory allocator and using it.
It's not difficult to write a memory allocator, but there are some assumptions there which don't always hold true. For instance SmartCards (e.g. SIMs) use a language alleged to be Java, but without a garbage collector and with only one data type. Applications never terminate, so while you can allocate heap memory, you cannot free it and memory exhaustion is one way to brick the device. Since it is "Java" you don't ha…
> How did you call a function if you didn’t have a stack for the return address or local variables? Here’s how it worked. First, the compiler defined a secret global variable for each inbound function parameter, plus another secret global variable for each function to hold the return address. It also defined a secret global variable for each of the function’s local variables. I always assumed that functions did somet…
Local variables are placed on the stack as well, this is necessary if you want recursion, and it also typically results in faster/shorter code, because the instruction set and microarchitecture are optimized for this type of memory access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh, or just choose a documented data structure that supports your problem scope. If it takes longer than 1 coffee, than someone is usually approaching things the wrong way... Have to think "minimum effort" here... ;-)
I have seen 150 lines of SQL replaced with 12k lines of Java.
That is efficient for most Java programmers. =)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds awfully complicated modifying a recursive algorithm to control the recursion depth. By that, I mean, if sometimes the data happens to be a very deep unbalanced tree that would cause a stack overflow with a naive recursive algorithm, you detect that situation and make it work. Isn't that much harder than just using your own stack (from a library/framework)?
> That sounds awfully complicated modifying a recursive algorithm to control the recursion depth. An easy way to do it is to just pass a separate "depth" integer parameter into the recursive function. It then passes that +1 when it makes a recursive call. At the top of the function, if the depth is above your chosen limit, you bail out in some way instead of continuing to recurse. > you detect that situation and make…