4 ms·

Thanks for sharing! The dot product example gave me pause because map2 seems to be the same as zipWith. Does that exist in Ante? Without context I might have t

Thanks for sharing! The dot product example gave me pause because map2 seems to be the same as zipWith. Does that exist in Ante? Without context I might have thought map2 was going to act as bimap. Take that for what you think it's worth :) Also I might be having a brain fart -- but isn't the dot product in your example equal to 32?

jfecher 4y ago
map2 is indeed another name for zipWith. I believe I got that name from Racket if memory serves. Compared to zipWith I like its symmetry with the 1 argument map. I also wasn't aware of bimap! I can't seem to find a function of that name online, though I did find the BiMap haskell package, is that what you're referring to? And yes, the dot product should be 32, thank you :)
- pwm 4y ago
  Not OP but they meant https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.16.1.0/docs/Data-Bifunctor.html#v:bimap https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.16.1.0/docs/Data-... As you have the normal map function for Functors (using Haskell): > :t fmap fmap :: Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b you can have bimap for Bifunctors: > :t bimap bimap :: Bifunctor p => (a -> b) -> (c -> d) -> p a c -> p b d which specialised to pairs is: > :t bimap @(,) bimap @(,) :: (a -> b) -> (c -> d) -> (a, c) -> (b, d)
- eruditely 4y ago
  I was wondering why the dot product wasn't 32! Good thing I checked. Also this seems like a cool new language, I need to learn a functional language, I wonder how far this language will go in development.
benniomars 4y ago
I calculated the dot product in my head because it looked off. Then I calculated it in my computer. Then I came to the comment section before losing all confidence in what I thought was a dot product of two vectors.
avgcorrection 4y ago
As it turns out you and Haskell are wrong with regards to that naming while this language is correct.

jfecher 4y ago

map2 is indeed another name for zipWith. I believe I got that name from Racket if memory serves. Compared to zipWith I like its symmetry with the 1 argument map. I also wasn't aware of bimap! I can't seem to find a function of that name online, though I did find the BiMap haskell package, is that what you're referring to? And yes, the dot product should be 32, thank you :)

pwm 4y ago
Not OP but they meant https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.16.1.0/docs/Data-Bifunctor.html#v:bimap https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.16.1.0/docs/Data-... As you have the normal map function for Functors (using Haskell): > :t fmap fmap :: Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b you can have bimap for Bifunctors: > :t bimap bimap :: Bifunctor p => (a -> b) -> (c -> d) -> p a c -> p b d which specialised to pairs is: > :t bimap @(,) bimap @(,) :: (a -> b) -> (c -> d) -> (a, c) -> (b, d)
eruditely 4y ago
I was wondering why the dot product wasn't 32! Good thing I checked. Also this seems like a cool new language, I need to learn a functional language, I wonder how far this language will go in development.

benniomars 4y ago

I calculated the dot product in my head because it looked off. Then I calculated it in my computer. Then I came to the comment section before losing all confidence in what I thought was a dot product of two vectors.

avgcorrection 4y ago

As it turns out you and Haskell are wrong with regards to that naming while this language is correct.