5 ms·
If you tried to understand as hard as you're trying to argue, you wouldn't be having this argument.
by epgui 3y ago
If you tried to understand as hard as you're trying to argue, you wouldn't be having this argument.
- auggierose 3y agoThere is nothing to understand here. As I said, it's pointless. From the Wikipedia article: > Tacit programming is of theoretical interest, because the strict use of composition results in programs that are well adapted for equational reasoning. Now this is bullshit. See my explanation, as equations are symmetric, and you can swap left and right hand side. Maybe you should try to understand harder.
- epgui 3y agoNo, you’re just failing to understand what “equational reasoning” means. It has little to do with the idea of LeftSide = RightSide. In fact you don’t even need an “equation” in that sense, or any equality sign, to do equational reasoning. Equational reasoning is when a program is evaluated (ie.: like when you simplify or factorize an equation in maths) by using substitution (or rewriting) rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewriting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewriting
- auggierose 3y agoThis is becoming funny. I recommend this book for you, you should read it. I have: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/term-rewriting-and-all-that/71768055278D0DEF4FFC74722DE0D707 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/term-rewriting-and-all-...
- epgui 3y agoFunny indeed, that’s the first reference on the wiki article. shrugs
- auggierose 3y agoSo you've read it? I wouldn't think so, because you don't seem to know the first thing about equational reasoning, namely that it is ALWAYS ABOUT EQUATIONS.