5 ms·

I really like this language. Very intuitive and simple syntax (once you understand the fundamentals). And very powerful too! The pattern matching examples get a

I really like this language. Very intuitive and simple syntax (once you understand the fundamentals). And very powerful too! The pattern matching examples get addictive after you've read a few. Egison can be used to build a symbolic math backend and do all kinds of pattern matching. But its really niche requirement and it's never really occurred to me in all this time "hey, this might be a good time to use Egison" I wonder when it might be a good idea to use Egison and if there are some current users in production.

ink_13 3y ago
Maybe I'm just a dummy who should stick to scripting, but I had exactly the opposite reaction: based on everything I've seen, this is wholly uninteresting. I can't imagine a single practical application that isn't more comprehensibly written in an existing language. But I feel the same way about Haskell, too. The older I get the more I value code that is easy to understand and debug by either myself or someone else months or years down the line when the original context might be forgotten. Ultra-dense syntax like this only makes that almost superhumanly difficult.
- kragen 3y ago
  try implementing symbolic differentiation in a language like haskell or egison, and then again in a language like python or js, and your perspective on what is 'easy to understand and debug' is very likely to change
  - znafelrif 3y ago
    Do you have an example of such an implementation in haskell?
    - kragen 3y ago
      googling i found https://gist.github.com/amalex5/541dc739201bbd8e26037b6738cdf75b https://gist.github.com/amalex5/541dc739201bbd8e26037b6738cd... although it's missing the type declaration http://5outh.blogspot.com/2013/05/symbolic-calculus-in-haskell.html http://5outh.blogspot.com/2013/05/symbolic-calculus-in-haske... is more complete and also includes an explanation and a bunch of algebraic simplifications you'd usually want along with the symbolic differentiation itself

ink_13 3y ago

Maybe I'm just a dummy who should stick to scripting, but I had exactly the opposite reaction: based on everything I've seen, this is wholly uninteresting. I can't imagine a single practical application that isn't more comprehensibly written in an existing language. But I feel the same way about Haskell, too. The older I get the more I value code that is easy to understand and debug by either myself or someone else months or years down the line when the original context might be forgotten. Ultra-dense syntax like this only makes that almost superhumanly difficult.

kragen 3y ago
try implementing symbolic differentiation in a language like haskell or egison, and then again in a language like python or js, and your perspective on what is 'easy to understand and debug' is very likely to change
- znafelrif 3y ago
  Do you have an example of such an implementation in haskell?
  - kragen 3y ago
    googling i found https://gist.github.com/amalex5/541dc739201bbd8e26037b6738cdf75b https://gist.github.com/amalex5/541dc739201bbd8e26037b6738cd... although it's missing the type declaration http://5outh.blogspot.com/2013/05/symbolic-calculus-in-haskell.html http://5outh.blogspot.com/2013/05/symbolic-calculus-in-haske... is more complete and also includes an explanation and a bunch of algebraic simplifications you'd usually want along with the symbolic differentiation itself