nice_uname_nerd

4 ms·

1.
by nice_uname_nerd 12y ago
I don't want to be too mean, but it looks like very little has changed since the six months or so when this last popped up on HN. The book still has none of the exercises that the exposition places so much weight on. Meanwhile, the int
2.
by nice_uname_nerd 12y ago
I don't think the problem here is functional programming, it's the author's over-eager use of category theory to describe something simple. In particular we're just talking about all possible lists you can create in LISP
3.
by nice_uname_nerd 12y ago
It's more than just strings though, it's all lists on a set of atoms. (a b c) is treated differently from (a (b c)). EDIT: Actually you're right, it's all strings on X. I thought the author wanted all lists on X.
4.
by nice_uname_nerd 12y ago
>units of measure are not "tools"...they are ways of communicating information. How you communicate information is important and has real impacts. Given a graph, you could choose to encode it as an adjacency matrix or as a coll
5.
by nice_uname_nerd 12y ago
I strongly disagree. Using the right tool for the right job is worth far more than enforcing arbitrary universal consistency. In a math course, you'd measure angles in radians so you're dealing with nice small multiples of pi. I t
6.
by nice_uname_nerd 12y ago
If you haven't seen any category theory, you might be interested to know that the diagrams the author draws are valuable and important in modern pure math as well. Those last two diagrams totally capture the idea of what a product or v