10 ms·

What about cartesian programming?

96 points by rumcajz 9y ago

GavinMcG 9y ago
Is this any different from "reactive" programming, a la Elm?
- zubairq 9y ago
  I agree.. when I hear that this doesn't exist then I am wondering if the author has heard of Eve or Elm
seliopou 9y ago
I don't wanna be "that guy", but this seems to just be the the list monad.
- drostie 9y ago
  You're not wrong, if the only verb is `c.expand()`. In Haskell you would write: -- omitting the definitions as trivial... cmdline (Suite box (Compiler cmd _ out_opt) (Test binary sources)) = intercalate " " [cmd, sources, out_opt, binary] testSuites = [Suite srvr comp test | srvr <- [box1, box2, box3, box4], comp <- [gcc, clang, msvc], test <- [frobnicate, loadtest, end2end], not (binary test == "loadtest" && ram srvr < 8)] (Note that Haskell lets you specify what `==` means so probably the above should say `test == loadtest` more directly...) If there are other verbs then it might not be 100% equivalent. For example one might want a sort of "Non-uniform random choice monad," let's say a monad of "Choosers", which will quickly generate a random candidate test suite. If you wanted to support both, you'd want to quickly define: class Monad m => MChoice m where choose :: [x] -> m x invalid :: m x invalid = choose [] mfilter :: Bool -> m () mfilter True = return () mfilter False = invalid instance MChoice [] where choose = id Then you can say, testSuites :: MChoice m => m TestSuite testSuites = do srvr <- choose [box1, box2, box3, box4] comp <- choose [gcc, clang, msvc] test <- choose [frobnicate, loadtest, end2end] mfilter . not $ test == loadtest && ram srvr < 8 return $ Suite srvr comp test In this respect maybe Cartesian programming represents a generalization of the list monad.
- pron 9y ago
  I think someone once proved that all programming languages (or just about) are equivalent in their expressiveness, and given that similar problems arise in all paradigms, it is not surprising that all paradigms have their own names for similar things. Just as monads and continuations are two different ways to express similar computational notions, it would not be surprising if there were others. None of these is more fundamental or "real" than the others. They are simply different ways to formally model an abstract concept.
gavanwoolery 9y ago
By the title, I thought it might be referring to something like the esolang Befunge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Befunge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Befunge), which operates on a grid rather than the usual linear sequence of instructions.
pharrington 9y ago
Jacking a comment from tfa: > B. K. Oxley (binkley) (guest) 30 Apr 2017, 11:42 > Does SQL match your notion of Cartesian paradigm? It's declarative (not procedural or functional), and works over sets. The "larger scope" would be the whole set of data; the "smaller scopes" would be projections, selections, etc. " My immediate thought also was set-based programming, and in turn SQL and its kin.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  Wait, do you mean it in a sense of mathematical sets or sets in SQL?
  - pharrington 9y ago
    You know what, I'm not sure. I only learned anything about set theory after learning SQL, and I haven't yet taken the time to think/read about SQL's formal relation to mathematical sets, so I may just be holding onto on misinformed assumption born from ignorance.
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      I got the other problem: I've been away from SQL and databases too long to tell you. Set theory is one of those mathematical notations that can be used to model all kinds of things. They often prove out the simpler, easy-to-automate logics in more powerful ones like it. There's introductions to set theory online but here's what you might have not spotted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theoretic_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theoretic_programming It was also used in formal specifications like Z. Also, used in one, verifying compiler that cheated the spec-to-code correspondence by straight-up turning the logical specs into executable Prolog. On database side, it would be Datalog for you to look into to explore logic programming + queries. Plenty of info out there on that with one DB (Datomic) built around it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_notation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_notation http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/bib/ss/hic/ http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/bib/ss/hic/
    - roywiggins 9y ago
fizixer 9y ago
- Click-bait title - Shows limited knowledge of the author (that imperative and functional are the only paradigms; ever looked at wikipedia page on programming paradigms [1], especially the sidebar on the right?) - There is no such thing that goes by the name Cartesian Programming (likely the author giving his own name to something known with a different name). - In the text, author starts discussing the paradigm with a tone that assumes the reader knows what it is. All in all, a low effort post. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm
- abtinf 9y ago
  Sometimes, I wish I could double downvote a comment. The author doesn't claim those are the one two paradigms. The author effectively calls out that there is no existing thing that goes by that name - how could he, when in the first paragraph he says he has never heard of it elsewhere. He succinctly states what it is before going into more detail. It's as if we read completely different articles. All in all, a low effort comment.
  - fizixer 9y ago
    Well the title of the HN post is changed already. Before it is changed on the blog post as well (in which case my comment would look very misplaced), here it is: "Sure, we have imperative and functional. But what about Cartesian programming?" > The author doesn't claim those are the one two paradigms. I never said the author made that claim (I said it shows the state of his knowledge). But for any statement along the lines "Sure we have imperative and functional. But what about X?" Well what about X? There are plently of X's around. If you look at the right sidebar on the page I linked, the number of X's are probably 30 to 40. Has the author studied and understood those 30 to 40 before asking "what about X"? What does the reader learn about X if the author doesn't put in the effort to study at least half of the 30 to 40 paradigms and then put his own thoughts in proper context? Well I guess the author might realize what he/she is thinking of is so well-known under another name that his way of presenting the content is simply causing more unnecessary terminology and bloat on the internet. Just my two cents.
nickpsecurity 9y ago
It might help to look at the bigger post at Github: https://github.com/sustrik/cartesian https://github.com/sustrik/cartesian Here's what author told me on Lobste.rs about this: "As for the motivation, it’s twofold. Firstly, I have to deal with complex configurations on daily basis and most of what’s out there is pretty ugly. Approach in Cartesian tries to solve the ugliness without resorting to exotic paradigms. It’s (I think) something that your average JavaScript developer would be comfortable with, yet powerful enough to describe really complex systems. Secondly, it’s a methodological experiment. I think it’s fair to say that inheritance has mostly failed us when we tried to model the complexity and irregularity of the real world. Therefore, this is a sketch of an alternative paradigm, one that uses cartesian products instead of inheritance. (But, as mentioned in the README, it can even be combined with classic inheritance.)" I'll message author about the thread to see if he wants to answer any questions.
- barrkel 9y ago
  In the configuration space there's a certain irreducible complexity. Depending on what angle you come at things, you can try to abstract away details, but you need to mentally evaluate the abstractions anyway to figure out the effective configuration, to see if it makes sense. I've long thought that configuration can be modeled as intersecting N-dimensional subspaces, where N is the number of configuration axes (e.g. production vs test vs dev is one axis, as are datacenter location, machine role, etc). You can say that all test machines enable feature flag X, or everything in datacenter Y should use network setting Y.net - and these are cross-cutting concerns that don't lend themselves to hierarchical composition (and thus inheritance is out). The configuration settings themselves have a scope in the configuration space. But then you need to evaluate it mentally to sanity-check it: are all the spaces covered correctly? Are there any odd overlaps? There's a pairing with table-based exhaustive testing. Perhaps the cartesian product of all the axes results in too many distinct N-cubes to test individually, but predicates might be written that act as sanity checks, and testing for exhaustive coverage of predicates over the configuration space is possible (e.g. "every box has a disk space allocation", "boxes running service D have at least X disk space", etc.). Anyhow, it's rattled away in my head for decades and has leaked out into implemented systems a couple of times, but never in a fully formalized or packaged way.
tjalfi 9y ago
Set-based programming is a fairly old idea. Jack Schwartz[0] created SETL[1] in 1969. SETL2[2] and SETLX[3] interpreters are available. Here is a sample program[4] by Keith S. Thompson. I have removed the comment header for brevity. program Fizz_Buzz; fizz := {3, 6..100}; buzz := {5, 10..100}; fizzbuzz := fizz * buzz; fizz -:= fizzbuzz; buzz -:= fizzbuzz; num := {1..100} - fizz - buzz - fizzbuzz; line_map := {[n, "Fizz"] : n in fizz} + {[n, "Buzz"] : n in buzz} + {[n, "FizzBuzz"] : n in fizzbuzz} + {[n, n] : n in num}; loop for i in [1..100] do print(line_map(i)); end loop; end Fizz_Buzz; [0] http://www.settheory.com http://www.settheory.com [1] http://wiki.c2.com/?SetlLanguage http://wiki.c2.com/?SetlLanguage [2] http://www.setl.org/setl/ http://www.setl.org/setl/ [3] https://randoom.org/Software/SetlX https://randoom.org/Software/SetlX [4] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Keith-S-Thompson/fizzbuzz-polyglot/master/fizzbuzz.setl https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Keith-S-Thompson/fizzbuzz-... Edited to fix formatting of footnotes and add newlines.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  It was used in a 2000 era web app. Neat. http://cs.nyu.edu/~bacon/phd-thesis/diss/node35.html http://cs.nyu.edu/~bacon/phd-thesis/diss/node35.html
- bbcbasic 9y ago
  You're hired!
- Rangi42 9y ago
  That translates fairly well into Python, with its set type and list/set/dict comprehensions. def setrange(first, next, last): return set(range(first, last+1, next-first)) fizz = setrange(3, 6, 100) buzz = setrange(5, 10, 100) fizzbuzz = fizz & buzz fizz -= fizzbuzz buzz -= fizzbuzz num = setrange(1, 2, 100) - fizz - buzz - fizzbuzz line_map = dict({n: "Fizz" for n in fizz}.items() + {n: "Buzz" for n in buzz}.items() + {n: "FizzBuzz" for n in fizzbuzz}.items() + {n: n for n in num}.items()) for i in range(1, 100+1): print(line_map[i]) Some SETL features Python lacks: • No ellipsis notation for ranges; must use the "range" function and add one to the maximum value, or define a custom "setrange" function • Can't concatenate dictionaries; must concatenate their "items" lists and convert back to a dictionary • No consistent map-lookup notation; collections are indexed with brackets, but functions are called with parentheses
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
uriva 9y ago
Cute, but isn't this almost like functional programming given a cartesianMap? e.g. const X = ['a', 'b']; const Y = [1, 2]; const res = cartesianMap(X, Y)((x, y) => [x, y]); console.log(res); // [['a', 1], ['a', 2], ['b', 1], ['b', 2]]
- bbcbasic 9y ago
  That's a testament to Turing completeness.
dragonwriter 9y ago
"Cartesian programming" seems to be, or be nearly indistinguishable from, relational programming; the examples given in the readme for the referenced library amount starts out with a three-relation cross join, adds some computed attributes to the join, and then adds some filtering conditions.
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
The author is aware of the logic programmign paradigm and constraint logic programming and has been "thinking a lot about Prolog" but only mentions imperative and functional in the article title because: most programmers would just not use Prolog (too exotic) while they may be OK with JavaScript That just makes me sad. I don't know how else to put it. Learning new languages used to be fun, I think. Now we gotta mollycoddle programmers into thinking about "new" paradigms, which are really not new at all, by wrapping it all up in javascript otherwise they run away screaming? I hope that's not true.
- icebraining 9y ago
  I admit I've only started programming around '99/00, but I don't remember learning "weird" languages being very popular even then. Mainstream communities mostly had a mix of C/C++/Java/Perl/PHP.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  Yeah, it's sad. It's the Worse is Better effect combined with momentum of legacy systems. You have to reuse things that have momentum to increase odds of your own thing having momentum. Three examples coming to mind were C++ building on C, successors using C-like syntax, and a number of languages integrating Java or .NET libraries. Those clean-slating solid concepts usually didn't go anywhere.
zubairq 9y ago
witheve.com, seems to do cartisian/relational programming Isn't Cartisian Porgamming essentialy what Eve is?
Communitivity 9y ago
I read the article and the examples reminded me a great deal of R. Granted, I haven't done much in R, just wrote a dashboard in R Shiny that combined IoT data from devices and perform analysis on them with fitting.
geocar 9y ago
q)datacenter: ([] name: `newyork`london`tokyo; webservers: 7 4 2); q)plan::update backends: webservers * 10 from datacenter q)webservers::select name, cmdline:`:/usr/bin/webserver, instances:webservers from plan q)backends::select name, cmdline:`:/usr/bin/backend, instances:backends from plan q)1@.j.j backends; [{"name":"newyork","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":70}, {"name":"london","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":40}, {"name":"tokyo","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":20}] kdb views track dependencies, so we can get Seattle represented with minimum effort: q)`datacenter insert (`seattle; 6); q)1@.j.j backends; [{"name":"newyork","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":70}, {"name":"london","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":40}, {"name":"tokyo","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":20}, {"name":"seattle","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":60}] What was "B" supposed to be twice of "A"? q)A:([] x:10?10); q)B::update x:x*2 from A q)A`x 8 1 9 5 4 6 6 1 8 5 q)B`x 16 2 18 10 8 12 12 2 16 10 q)update x:10?10 from `A; q)A`x 4 9 2 7 0 1 9 2 1 8 q)B`x 8 18 4 14 0 2 18 4 2 16 And the syntax is much nicer than JavaScript.
Boothroid 9y ago
The concept of dependency is one aspect of ABM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent-based_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent-based_model

96 points by rumcajz 9y ago

GavinMcG 9y ago

Is this any different from "reactive" programming, a la Elm?

zubairq 9y ago
I agree.. when I hear that this doesn't exist then I am wondering if the author has heard of Eve or Elm

seliopou 9y ago

I don't wanna be "that guy", but this seems to just be the the list monad.

drostie 9y ago
You're not wrong, if the only verb is `c.expand()`. In Haskell you would write: -- omitting the definitions as trivial... cmdline (Suite box (Compiler cmd _ out_opt) (Test binary sources)) = intercalate " " [cmd, sources, out_opt, binary] testSuites = [Suite srvr comp test | srvr <- [box1, box2, box3, box4], comp <- [gcc, clang, msvc], test <- [frobnicate, loadtest, end2end], not (binary test == "loadtest" && ram srvr < 8)] (Note that Haskell lets you specify what `==` means so probably the above should say `test == loadtest` more directly...) If there are other verbs then it might not be 100% equivalent. For example one might want a sort of "Non-uniform random choice monad," let's say a monad of "Choosers", which will quickly generate a random candidate test suite. If you wanted to support both, you'd want to quickly define: class Monad m => MChoice m where choose :: [x] -> m x invalid :: m x invalid = choose [] mfilter :: Bool -> m () mfilter True = return () mfilter False = invalid instance MChoice [] where choose = id Then you can say, testSuites :: MChoice m => m TestSuite testSuites = do srvr <- choose [box1, box2, box3, box4] comp <- choose [gcc, clang, msvc] test <- choose [frobnicate, loadtest, end2end] mfilter . not $ test == loadtest && ram srvr < 8 return $ Suite srvr comp test In this respect maybe Cartesian programming represents a generalization of the list monad.
pron 9y ago
I think someone once proved that all programming languages (or just about) are equivalent in their expressiveness, and given that similar problems arise in all paradigms, it is not surprising that all paradigms have their own names for similar things. Just as monads and continuations are two different ways to express similar computational notions, it would not be surprising if there were others. None of these is more fundamental or "real" than the others. They are simply different ways to formally model an abstract concept.

gavanwoolery 9y ago

By the title, I thought it might be referring to something like the esolang Befunge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Befunge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Befunge), which operates on a grid rather than the usual linear sequence of instructions.

pharrington 9y ago

Jacking a comment from tfa: > B. K. Oxley (binkley) (guest) 30 Apr 2017, 11:42 > Does SQL match your notion of Cartesian paradigm? It's declarative (not procedural or functional), and works over sets. The "larger scope" would be the whole set of data; the "smaller scopes" would be projections, selections, etc. " My immediate thought also was set-based programming, and in turn SQL and its kin.

nickpsecurity 9y ago
Wait, do you mean it in a sense of mathematical sets or sets in SQL?
- pharrington 9y ago
  You know what, I'm not sure. I only learned anything about set theory after learning SQL, and I haven't yet taken the time to think/read about SQL's formal relation to mathematical sets, so I may just be holding onto on misinformed assumption born from ignorance.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    I got the other problem: I've been away from SQL and databases too long to tell you. Set theory is one of those mathematical notations that can be used to model all kinds of things. They often prove out the simpler, easy-to-automate logics in more powerful ones like it. There's introductions to set theory online but here's what you might have not spotted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theoretic_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theoretic_programming It was also used in formal specifications like Z. Also, used in one, verifying compiler that cheated the spec-to-code correspondence by straight-up turning the logical specs into executable Prolog. On database side, it would be Datalog for you to look into to explore logic programming + queries. Plenty of info out there on that with one DB (Datomic) built around it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_notation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_notation http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/bib/ss/hic/ http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/bib/ss/hic/
  - roywiggins 9y ago

fizixer 9y ago

- Click-bait title - Shows limited knowledge of the author (that imperative and functional are the only paradigms; ever looked at wikipedia page on programming paradigms [1], especially the sidebar on the right?) - There is no such thing that goes by the name Cartesian Programming (likely the author giving his own name to something known with a different name). - In the text, author starts discussing the paradigm with a tone that assumes the reader knows what it is. All in all, a low effort post. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm

abtinf 9y ago
Sometimes, I wish I could double downvote a comment. The author doesn't claim those are the one two paradigms. The author effectively calls out that there is no existing thing that goes by that name - how could he, when in the first paragraph he says he has never heard of it elsewhere. He succinctly states what it is before going into more detail. It's as if we read completely different articles. All in all, a low effort comment.
- fizixer 9y ago
  Well the title of the HN post is changed already. Before it is changed on the blog post as well (in which case my comment would look very misplaced), here it is: "Sure, we have imperative and functional. But what about Cartesian programming?" > The author doesn't claim those are the one two paradigms. I never said the author made that claim (I said it shows the state of his knowledge). But for any statement along the lines "Sure we have imperative and functional. But what about X?" Well what about X? There are plently of X's around. If you look at the right sidebar on the page I linked, the number of X's are probably 30 to 40. Has the author studied and understood those 30 to 40 before asking "what about X"? What does the reader learn about X if the author doesn't put in the effort to study at least half of the 30 to 40 paradigms and then put his own thoughts in proper context? Well I guess the author might realize what he/she is thinking of is so well-known under another name that his way of presenting the content is simply causing more unnecessary terminology and bloat on the internet. Just my two cents.

nickpsecurity 9y ago

It might help to look at the bigger post at Github: https://github.com/sustrik/cartesian https://github.com/sustrik/cartesian Here's what author told me on Lobste.rs about this: "As for the motivation, it’s twofold. Firstly, I have to deal with complex configurations on daily basis and most of what’s out there is pretty ugly. Approach in Cartesian tries to solve the ugliness without resorting to exotic paradigms. It’s (I think) something that your average JavaScript developer would be comfortable with, yet powerful enough to describe really complex systems. Secondly, it’s a methodological experiment. I think it’s fair to say that inheritance has mostly failed us when we tried to model the complexity and irregularity of the real world. Therefore, this is a sketch of an alternative paradigm, one that uses cartesian products instead of inheritance. (But, as mentioned in the README, it can even be combined with classic inheritance.)" I'll message author about the thread to see if he wants to answer any questions.

barrkel 9y ago
In the configuration space there's a certain irreducible complexity. Depending on what angle you come at things, you can try to abstract away details, but you need to mentally evaluate the abstractions anyway to figure out the effective configuration, to see if it makes sense. I've long thought that configuration can be modeled as intersecting N-dimensional subspaces, where N is the number of configuration axes (e.g. production vs test vs dev is one axis, as are datacenter location, machine role, etc). You can say that all test machines enable feature flag X, or everything in datacenter Y should use network setting Y.net - and these are cross-cutting concerns that don't lend themselves to hierarchical composition (and thus inheritance is out). The configuration settings themselves have a scope in the configuration space. But then you need to evaluate it mentally to sanity-check it: are all the spaces covered correctly? Are there any odd overlaps? There's a pairing with table-based exhaustive testing. Perhaps the cartesian product of all the axes results in too many distinct N-cubes to test individually, but predicates might be written that act as sanity checks, and testing for exhaustive coverage of predicates over the configuration space is possible (e.g. "every box has a disk space allocation", "boxes running service D have at least X disk space", etc.). Anyhow, it's rattled away in my head for decades and has leaked out into implemented systems a couple of times, but never in a fully formalized or packaged way.

tjalfi 9y ago

Set-based programming is a fairly old idea. Jack Schwartz[0] created SETL[1] in 1969. SETL2[2] and SETLX[3] interpreters are available. Here is a sample program[4] by Keith S. Thompson. I have removed the comment header for brevity. program Fizz_Buzz; fizz := {3, 6..100}; buzz := {5, 10..100}; fizzbuzz := fizz * buzz; fizz -:= fizzbuzz; buzz -:= fizzbuzz; num := {1..100} - fizz - buzz - fizzbuzz; line_map := {[n, "Fizz"] : n in fizz} + {[n, "Buzz"] : n in buzz} + {[n, "FizzBuzz"] : n in fizzbuzz} + {[n, n] : n in num}; loop for i in [1..100] do print(line_map(i)); end loop; end Fizz_Buzz; [0] http://www.settheory.com http://www.settheory.com [1] http://wiki.c2.com/?SetlLanguage http://wiki.c2.com/?SetlLanguage [2] http://www.setl.org/setl/ http://www.setl.org/setl/ [3] https://randoom.org/Software/SetlX https://randoom.org/Software/SetlX [4] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Keith-S-Thompson/fizzbuzz-polyglot/master/fizzbuzz.setl https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Keith-S-Thompson/fizzbuzz-... Edited to fix formatting of footnotes and add newlines.

nickpsecurity 9y ago
It was used in a 2000 era web app. Neat. http://cs.nyu.edu/~bacon/phd-thesis/diss/node35.html http://cs.nyu.edu/~bacon/phd-thesis/diss/node35.html
bbcbasic 9y ago
You're hired!
Rangi42 9y ago
That translates fairly well into Python, with its set type and list/set/dict comprehensions. def setrange(first, next, last): return set(range(first, last+1, next-first)) fizz = setrange(3, 6, 100) buzz = setrange(5, 10, 100) fizzbuzz = fizz & buzz fizz -= fizzbuzz buzz -= fizzbuzz num = setrange(1, 2, 100) - fizz - buzz - fizzbuzz line_map = dict({n: "Fizz" for n in fizz}.items() + {n: "Buzz" for n in buzz}.items() + {n: "FizzBuzz" for n in fizzbuzz}.items() + {n: n for n in num}.items()) for i in range(1, 100+1): print(line_map[i]) Some SETL features Python lacks: • No ellipsis notation for ranges; must use the "range" function and add one to the maximum value, or define a custom "setrange" function • Can't concatenate dictionaries; must concatenate their "items" lists and convert back to a dictionary • No consistent map-lookup notation; collections are indexed with brackets, but functions are called with parentheses

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

uriva 9y ago

Cute, but isn't this almost like functional programming given a cartesianMap? e.g. const X = ['a', 'b']; const Y = [1, 2]; const res = cartesianMap(X, Y)((x, y) => [x, y]); console.log(res); // [['a', 1], ['a', 2], ['b', 1], ['b', 2]]

bbcbasic 9y ago
That's a testament to Turing completeness.

dragonwriter 9y ago

"Cartesian programming" seems to be, or be nearly indistinguishable from, relational programming; the examples given in the readme for the referenced library amount starts out with a three-relation cross join, adds some computed attributes to the join, and then adds some filtering conditions.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

The author is aware of the logic programmign paradigm and constraint logic programming and has been "thinking a lot about Prolog" but only mentions imperative and functional in the article title because: most programmers would just not use Prolog (too exotic) while they may be OK with JavaScript That just makes me sad. I don't know how else to put it. Learning new languages used to be fun, I think. Now we gotta mollycoddle programmers into thinking about "new" paradigms, which are really not new at all, by wrapping it all up in javascript otherwise they run away screaming? I hope that's not true.

icebraining 9y ago
I admit I've only started programming around '99/00, but I don't remember learning "weird" languages being very popular even then. Mainstream communities mostly had a mix of C/C++/Java/Perl/PHP.
nickpsecurity 9y ago
Yeah, it's sad. It's the Worse is Better effect combined with momentum of legacy systems. You have to reuse things that have momentum to increase odds of your own thing having momentum. Three examples coming to mind were C++ building on C, successors using C-like syntax, and a number of languages integrating Java or .NET libraries. Those clean-slating solid concepts usually didn't go anywhere.

zubairq 9y ago

witheve.com, seems to do cartisian/relational programming Isn't Cartisian Porgamming essentialy what Eve is?

Communitivity 9y ago

I read the article and the examples reminded me a great deal of R. Granted, I haven't done much in R, just wrote a dashboard in R Shiny that combined IoT data from devices and perform analysis on them with fitting.

geocar 9y ago

q)datacenter: ([] name: `newyork`london`tokyo; webservers: 7 4 2); q)plan::update backends: webservers * 10 from datacenter q)webservers::select name, cmdline:`:/usr/bin/webserver, instances:webservers from plan q)backends::select name, cmdline:`:/usr/bin/backend, instances:backends from plan q)1@.j.j backends; [{"name":"newyork","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":70}, {"name":"london","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":40}, {"name":"tokyo","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":20}] kdb views track dependencies, so we can get Seattle represented with minimum effort: q)`datacenter insert (`seattle; 6); q)1@.j.j backends; [{"name":"newyork","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":70}, {"name":"london","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":40}, {"name":"tokyo","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":20}, {"name":"seattle","cmdline":":/usr/bin/backend","instances":60}] What was "B" supposed to be twice of "A"? q)A:([] x:10?10); q)B::update x:x*2 from A q)A`x 8 1 9 5 4 6 6 1 8 5 q)B`x 16 2 18 10 8 12 12 2 16 10 q)update x:10?10 from `A; q)A`x 4 9 2 7 0 1 9 2 1 8 q)B`x 8 18 4 14 0 2 18 4 2 16 And the syntax is much nicer than JavaScript.

Boothroid 9y ago

The concept of dependency is one aspect of ABM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent-based_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent-based_model