4 ms·

With haskell it will be less similar since Haskell doesn't use the semi-colon to separate function clauses, and the period for delimit the last one. You could a

With haskell it will be less similar since Haskell doesn't use the semi-colon to separate function clauses, and the period for delimit the last one. You could argue that Haskell tuples will use the () syntax instead of {} as in Erlang. I've mostly wrote this joke since many Erlang beginners find the semi-colon/period syntax confusing, but then there you have it on an essential book about programming

sotojuan 10y ago
I'm pretty sure many more people find TAOCP confusing than they do Erlang :p
- old_sound 10y ago
  Can we say: "If you understand the first 20 pages of TAOCP, you understand Erlang"?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    You can understand Erlang even if you're not that good at math, but you won't be able to make much of TAOCP if you aren't good at math. One thing is for sure: just trying to read TAOCP will eventually make you better at math.
    - old_sound 10y ago
      There's no such thing as "being good at math". You either put effort and practice to learn it, or you don't. Fixed va Growth Mindset, etc…
      - JadeNB 10y ago
        > There's no such thing as "being good at math". You either put effort and practice to learn it, or you don't. I agree with your second sentence, and, as a mathematician and a teacher, I think that I agree with the spirit of the first, but I think that it's probably not worded as you mean. Think of the same sentence with, say, 'baseball' in place of 'math': I think that most people would agree with the second sentence, but not the first. By the same token, there's no such thing as "being inherently good" (or, for that matter, inherently bad) "at math"; but I think that it would be silly to pretend that the effort and practice don't make you good (or at least better) at it.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - OskarS 10y ago
    The thing about the beginning of Vol 1 of TAOCP is that it begins with the "mathematical preliminaries" which is among the most difficult things in the book (aside from some of the more hard-core analysis). Like, his description of heap-sort in Vol 3. is easy enough to follow, but fuck man, generating functions are hard!
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      Which is why my professor and classmate and I switched to Concrete Mathematics about halfway through working through chapter 1. More thorough examination of many of the topics in chapter 1, plus more material.
      - _asummers 10y ago
        My advisor would always make a joke to his classes, when that book came up, that it had a dual purpose name - - that it was foundational, but also because it's hard as concrete. I used it as reference in some of my math classes but haven't given it a thorough read.
        Jtsummers 10y ago
        We worked through about 1/3 of the material starting one summer term (where we started on TAOCP) and finishing sometime in the fall. Definitely hard, but it also helped me finally understand a lot of math that I "knew" but hadn't yet grokked.
fusiongyro 10y ago
Any text that defines piecewise functions is going to use syntax similar to Knuth. It's much older than him or his text. Piecewise functions are not common in the normal math track though, because they're not continuous and differentiable, so they make the path to calculus more complex. In my experience, it is we programmers who care about syntax the most. Math folks seem to be happy if you can get the gist of something. Still, you're right, the semicolon/period thing is troubling for Erlang beginners, but that part of the syntax really does come from Prolog.
- _asummers 10y ago
  How are piece wise functions NOT covered in normal math tracks? While not strictly necessary for algebra and geometry, I can't imaging being able to grok behavior at asymptotes in calculus and analysis without being somewhat comfortable with them. They were taught in middle/early high school in Maryland school systems, if I recall.

sotojuan 10y ago

I'm pretty sure many more people find TAOCP confusing than they do Erlang :p

old_sound 10y ago
Can we say: "If you understand the first 20 pages of TAOCP, you understand Erlang"?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  You can understand Erlang even if you're not that good at math, but you won't be able to make much of TAOCP if you aren't good at math. One thing is for sure: just trying to read TAOCP will eventually make you better at math.
  - old_sound 10y ago
    There's no such thing as "being good at math". You either put effort and practice to learn it, or you don't. Fixed va Growth Mindset, etc…
    - JadeNB 10y ago
      > There's no such thing as "being good at math". You either put effort and practice to learn it, or you don't. I agree with your second sentence, and, as a mathematician and a teacher, I think that I agree with the spirit of the first, but I think that it's probably not worded as you mean. Think of the same sentence with, say, 'baseball' in place of 'math': I think that most people would agree with the second sentence, but not the first. By the same token, there's no such thing as "being inherently good" (or, for that matter, inherently bad) "at math"; but I think that it would be silly to pretend that the effort and practice don't make you good (or at least better) at it.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- OskarS 10y ago
  The thing about the beginning of Vol 1 of TAOCP is that it begins with the "mathematical preliminaries" which is among the most difficult things in the book (aside from some of the more hard-core analysis). Like, his description of heap-sort in Vol 3. is easy enough to follow, but fuck man, generating functions are hard!
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Which is why my professor and classmate and I switched to Concrete Mathematics about halfway through working through chapter 1. More thorough examination of many of the topics in chapter 1, plus more material.
    - _asummers 10y ago
      My advisor would always make a joke to his classes, when that book came up, that it had a dual purpose name - - that it was foundational, but also because it's hard as concrete. I used it as reference in some of my math classes but haven't given it a thorough read.
      - Jtsummers 10y ago
        We worked through about 1/3 of the material starting one summer term (where we started on TAOCP) and finishing sometime in the fall. Definitely hard, but it also helped me finally understand a lot of math that I "knew" but hadn't yet grokked.

fusiongyro 10y ago

Any text that defines piecewise functions is going to use syntax similar to Knuth. It's much older than him or his text. Piecewise functions are not common in the normal math track though, because they're not continuous and differentiable, so they make the path to calculus more complex. In my experience, it is we programmers who care about syntax the most. Math folks seem to be happy if you can get the gist of something. Still, you're right, the semicolon/period thing is troubling for Erlang beginners, but that part of the syntax really does come from Prolog.

_asummers 10y ago
How are piece wise functions NOT covered in normal math tracks? While not strictly necessary for algebra and geometry, I can't imaging being able to grok behavior at asymptotes in calculus and analysis without being somewhat comfortable with them. They were taught in middle/early high school in Maryland school systems, if I recall.