oskarkv

8 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

True, but I am convinced that meditation can lead to awakening, which, apparently, involves the cessation of suffering and feeling one with the universe. It's not so far fetched, since our experience is generated by our brains, and similar things can happen on drugs.

oskarkv

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Is thinking obsolete too?

oskarkv

12 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

It really is readable, to me at least. I just wanted to say that because some people will perhaps read your comment and take it as true, because they too struggle with it at the moment, and then discard Clojure. But I'm just in love with it---yes, the syntax.

oskarkv

12 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

I was interested until I noticed it was pay-to-win. Instantly closed the tab.

oskarkv

12 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

No. I love it. It's so simple. Even if Haskell has pretty nice syntax, I found myself resenting it because I needed to remember operator precedence.

oskarkv

12 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

For very simple cases there are the threading macros, `->` et al., that you can use like this:

  (-> state 
      (assoc :a val) 
      (update-in [:b :c] f args) 
      (dissoc :d)
      (some-other-fn args))

where :a - :d are keys.

Or you could use monads in much the same way as you would in Haskell; there are libs for that.

Or you could write a new macro (or maybe even function) that does exactly what you want. I did that for a game. It looked like this:

  (call-update-fns game-state hook
    (update-monster-positions)
    (update-monster-ai)
    (let-characters-attack)
    (some-other-stuff))

It would thread the game-state (immutable) through all the functions, and call hook (a function) in between all the functions to send network messages and stuff (to minimize latency), and also collect and return new events that the functions created that I needed to handle (e.g. someone died when the characters attacked). It's almost like the state monad but not quite.

oskarkv

13 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Yeah, only Lisp is beautiful. ;)

oskarkv

13 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Big O is not necessarily about execution time. Also, why is it ridiculous to describe execution time as "time complexity"? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_algorithms "Usually, the efficiency or running time of an algorithm is stated as a function relating the input length to the number of steps (time complexity) or storage locations (space complexity)."

oskarkv

13 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Branching factor 32 is great for lookups, but isn't it slower for modification? At least, one has to create more array cells in total (31 copies in each node), no?

oskarkv

13 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

First of all, O(g(n)) is a set. It is the set of functions f(n) such that there exists positive constants n0 and C, and C*g(n) > f(n) when n > n0.

Second, talking about O(g(n)) does not imply that the time complexity being discussed is the worst-case (or any other case) time complexity. One could for example say that the algorithm A's best-case time complexity is in O(n), and it's worst-case time complexity is in O(n^2).

oskarkv

13 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Of course O(n) is not equal to O(n^2). O(n) is a set, and O(n^2) is a different set.

oskarkv

13 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

He says he understood the power of Lisp, yet he made a non-Lisp language. :P I don't get people who make non-Lisp languages.

oskarkv

13 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

That's your biggest concern?

oskarkv

13 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Does Chicken have immutable data structures? How about typeclasses/protocols? How about literal syntax for hash maps, sets, vectors/arrays?

I'm coming from Clojure, and I'm interested in Chicken. I really like the things mentioned above about Clojure and I am just interested in how Chicken compares when it comes to these things.

oskarkv

14 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

`for` is a macro, not a special form. Special forms are these: http://clojure.org/special_forms

oskarkv

14 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

I don't know what you mean by widespread. But work on it does not seem to be slowing down, and it is a really good language, so I think it will only grow.

oskarkv

14 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

There is a lot of stuff in Clojure that can be done in more than one way. I know that Python focuses on "only one way to do it", but Clojure's focus is on simplicity, as defined by Rich Hickey in Simple Made Easy [1], and that is a much better focus. I find that, as Rich says (and I'm paraphrasing), simplicity is by far the most important concern when programming. It dominates all other concerns in terms of importance and payoff. I believe I have become a much better programmer since I learned Clojure and listened to Rich's talks.

[1] http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy

oskarkv

14 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Yeah, I know about it, but it's an additional dependency, right? [org.clojure/core.logic "0.7.5"] Whatever, Clojure is clean and simple is what I wanted to say. :)

oskarkv

14 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Your comment gives the impression that Clojure is a big multiparadigm mess. But it is not. Clojure's design is clean and simple. Clojure is mostly functional. Sure, since it's a Lisp one can kind of incorporate other paradigms with macros. But out of the box Clojure does not do Java-style OOP (except for interop) or Prolog-style logic.

oskarkv

14 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

The correct statement about lower bounds is this: "In the worst case, any comparison based sorting algorithm must make Ω(n log(n)) comparisons."

You are making the same mistake that people that have Misconception 1 make. "The algorithm must make <a set of functions> comparisons." is a nonsensical statement.

Submissions

Ask HN: Examples of Complecting

comments