61–70 of 106 posts
I'm very confused by the idea that OOP would be considered somehow more "algebraic". Functional programming seems way more algebraic to me. I mean, writing Haskell seems about as algebraic as programming gets even without using monads or other such very-high-level abstractions. Also, odd where he puts emacs/vi compared to where he puts programming languages, considering that emacs uses Lisp. (FWIW, I prefer algebra,…
Apparently I'm screwed; I cut it off the cob in sheets. So I guess that means I don't care about efficiency, but need things super neat and orderly. I have always liked Prolog though...
I'm a vertical man myself. I turn the corn on its side so the cylindrical part is going up/down and bite downwards. I do it so that the kernels come off cleanly and don't get stuck in your teeth (very similar to cutting them off). I wonder where that puts me?
I'm very confused by the idea that OOP would be considered somehow more "algebraic". Functional programming seems way more algebraic to me. I mean, writing Haskell seems about as algebraic as programming gets even without using monads or other such very-high-level abstractions. Also, odd where he puts emacs/vi compared to where he puts programming languages, considering that emacs uses Lisp. (FWIW, I prefer algebra,…
Comonads are used to describe context-dependent computations. In OOP, you might define a class along with some instance methods (which access private fields or somesuch in order to manipulate the state of the program).
The connection between comonads and OOP arises when you think of a comonad where the "context" is an instance of your class -- so your class methods are the context-dependent computations.
Apparently I'm screwed; I cut it off the cob in sheets. So I guess that means I don't care about efficiency, but need things super neat and orderly. I have always liked Prolog though...
I eat my corn in rings, fix a z and then scrape through theta before choosing the next z. It's efficient and it sort-of follows the cornkernel grid. I'm also more of a statistician who edits in vi and emacs every day and I'm challenging myself with some category theory and abstract algebra because I find it intoxicating. So, I don't have a clue how to fit into this divide.
Anyway, a highly entertaining article.
I'm very confused by the idea that OOP would be considered somehow more "algebraic". Functional programming seems way more algebraic to me. I mean, writing Haskell seems about as algebraic as programming gets even without using monads or other such very-high-level abstractions. Also, odd where he puts emacs/vi compared to where he puts programming languages, considering that emacs uses Lisp. (FWIW, I prefer algebra,…
In OOP you spend a lot of time defining sets (classes) and coming up with operations on those sets (methods).
In FP you're not so concerned about coming up with sets and operations but rather breaking things up into ever smaller pieces. I mentioned elsewhere that analysis is about starting with big circles and making them arbitrarily small. This is pretty much what recursion is.
A) I hate getting the kernel skins stuck in my teeth. This happens when eating directly from the cob. I spend dozens and dozens of minutes picking, flossing, and sucking my teeth to get them clean. I'd prefer to shave the kernels off with a knife.
If I must eat from the cob:
B) Cobs with husks attached-- you get these at festivals and fairs. Sometimes they're so frickin' delicious you have to just put up with the A) issues. I'm eating it like a dot matrix printer prints on its drum, from one end to the other, rotate a bit and do it again. Cuz it's hard to rotate more with the damn husk in the way.
C) Cobs without husks-- family gatherings with plastic utensils that couldn't shave a cob in any circumstances. Start at the left end and spin the cob until that section is clear; move slightly right, repeat.
So I'm a pragmatist. And this post had me spending far too much time analyzing and posting about my corn eating habits.
Hi, I'm delinka, and I eat corn.
Rows are superior to spirals, because you can eat up all grains while having to turn the cob only once. The minimal number of turns you have to make when eating in a spiral is the length of the cob divided by the width of your frontal bite. // Full disclosure: I started liking math only after a course of abstract algebra, and I eat corn in rows.
That said I actually have no idea which way I prefer to eat corn on the cob, and I guess now I'll never be able to make an unbiased assessment.