3 ms·
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 c
by 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 agotry 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 agoDo you have an example of such an implementation in haskell?
- kragen 3y agogoogling 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