13 ms·
Right, but the post is "I'd really be impressed with a system that could figure out the closed form based on the definition." Point seeming that coding up a re
by taeric 3y ago
Right, but the post is "I'd really be impressed with a system that could figure out the closed form based on the definition." Point seeming that coding up a recursive process based on the definition doesn't seem to be the best reason to teach something that way.
This goes back to a ton of the talk on early compilers and systems. They would push that you should lean heavily on the system to move from definitions to optimal solutions. (This later got changed heavily to leaning only on the compiler, but the same idea applies.)
- toast0 3y agoThat was parenthetical, I was responding to "It burns me up that Fibonacci numbers are used so frequently as an example of functional programming because it is a clear case of malpractice"
- taeric 3y agoRight, I took that to be that the complaint is the recursive definition is used to teach it. Stated differently, ignoring the parenthetical takes the weakest interpretation of that post.