11 ms·

Asking to back things up is not asking for an explanation. You keep asking for authoritative arguments instead of discussing, it's very tense.. I just copy pas

Asking to back things up is not asking for an explanation. You keep asking for authoritative arguments instead of discussing, it's very tense.. I just copy pasted the first line of code in wikipedia, the definition is the same in ocaml, and in spirit scheme (list pattern matching syntax aside). You're forcing your views on me, thinking I'm defending a Haskell cult which I'm not. Most of this came before Haskell was a language name idea. Probably even back to the late 60s. And yes inductive reasoning is about compressing the domain in a finite set of disjoint cases that "eat itself" because you can reuse other parts of that domain in substructures. Wrapping all required information as function argument makes them self sustainable / encapsulated because nothing leaks out. It's not that much of a bizarre claim.

CyberDildonics 3y ago
You keep asking for authoritative arguments instead of discussing, I'm just asking for something and you haven't given anything but big claims of the benefits of recursion without any explanations or example comparisons. And yes inductive reasoning is about compressing the domain in a finite set of disjoint cases that "eat itself" because you can reuse other parts of that domain in substructures. Wrapping all required information as function argument makes them self sustainable / encapsulated because nothing leaks out. This is still a grandiose claim without any explanation of what it is supposed to mean, let alone any explanation of why it is true, especially in comparison to other languages. Every language has functions.