4 ms·

"Hopefully this is a lot clearer." Really hope that was a joke, because the immediately preceding mishmash of ASCII art is pretty much the OPPOSITE of clearer.

by al2o3cr 12y ago

"Hopefully this is a lot clearer." Really hope that was a joke, because the immediately preceding mishmash of ASCII art is pretty much the OPPOSITE of clearer. I'm also imagining the source-code diffs from editing one of these. Yow. But perhaps that's the idea: make circuitous functions so painful to write that people refactor to smaller ones.

xg15 12y ago
I don't even need diffs, I imagine writing and editing code like this will be painful enough. Good luck having your program structure limited by the need to force it into a rectangular 2D grid. Also rewriting half of your program because one of your tracks changed sounds like huge fun. The thing is of course that the basic idea of "visually" representing the function graph is extremely fascinating. I just think that a real graphical editor would be better suited for this. Trying to shoehorn it back into a text representation does more damage than good.
- RubyPinch 12y ago
  > Good luck having your program structure limited by the need to force it into a rectangular 2D grid. could be worse. I remember seeing a method for... visualizing the size of integers in code, '|---------|' being the 1d example, and an ascii square to describe 2d, and I believe a cube would work for 3d (1,2, and 3 integers respectively) I think it was either ruby or C that it was done in, but I havn't seen it in a long time
jberryman 12y ago
> Really hope that was a joke, because the immediately preceding mishmash of ASCII art is pretty much the OPPOSITE of clearer. Do you really think it's a joke or are you just being nasty? I thought it was quite clear (although perhaps the choices of visual ascii characters could be tweaked a little), and it certainly makes the structure of the circuit more apparent than in the original arrow notation. Obviously this is an experiment, and a quite clever one in my opinion.
- blktiger 12y ago
  It was not clear at all to me. I find the original function much easier to read myself.
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  I thought it was a joke, and a cool hack, but not actually intended for real use. But I wasn't sure, and came here to post "So... is this a joke?"
Dewie 12y ago
Did you understand the original Haskell function?

by al2o3cr 12y ago

xg15 12y ago

I don't even need diffs, I imagine writing and editing code like this will be painful enough. Good luck having your program structure limited by the need to force it into a rectangular 2D grid. Also rewriting half of your program because one of your tracks changed sounds like huge fun. The thing is of course that the basic idea of "visually" representing the function graph is extremely fascinating. I just think that a real graphical editor would be better suited for this. Trying to shoehorn it back into a text representation does more damage than good.

RubyPinch 12y ago
> Good luck having your program structure limited by the need to force it into a rectangular 2D grid. could be worse. I remember seeing a method for... visualizing the size of integers in code, '|---------|' being the 1d example, and an ascii square to describe 2d, and I believe a cube would work for 3d (1,2, and 3 integers respectively) I think it was either ruby or C that it was done in, but I havn't seen it in a long time

jberryman 12y ago

> Really hope that was a joke, because the immediately preceding mishmash of ASCII art is pretty much the OPPOSITE of clearer. Do you really think it's a joke or are you just being nasty? I thought it was quite clear (although perhaps the choices of visual ascii characters could be tweaked a little), and it certainly makes the structure of the circuit more apparent than in the original arrow notation. Obviously this is an experiment, and a quite clever one in my opinion.

blktiger 12y ago
It was not clear at all to me. I find the original function much easier to read myself.
jrochkind1 12y ago
I thought it was a joke, and a cool hack, but not actually intended for real use. But I wasn't sure, and came here to post "So... is this a joke?"

Dewie 12y ago

Did you understand the original Haskell function?