anc2020

http://pastebin.com/m6e742f56

Edit: And won't this be a problem if interviewees can access the internet? The interviewers will have to make sure they can check the browsing history of the computer being used!

The parent was more even handed when they mentioned confidence and social status. Yes, some girls maybe care about confidence a bit too much, but just the same, guys like myself can often do a poor job of acting confident (sometimes due to lack of effort conforming to norms).

There are two sides to the story.

Since it's pure a decent compiler should be able to simply replace any `x` with the number 9 - correct me if I'm wrong :)

Any primitive (C code) however won't run until run-time, which is probably the pressing reason putStr doesn't run until run-time (and that's a good thing :)

Edit: As an aside, I already know that "Monad" doesn't mean impure (having implemented an IO monad in my spare time to find out) and that was implied when I said "100% pure functional [...] like Haskell".

They are implemented purely, nonetheless they do allow side-effect (impure) programming.

Because we all know already that a program needs to print values or "do" something to be useful, so in that way no program is ever 100% pure - is that what he's talking about?

Or is he talking about 100% pure functional languages which allow functional ways of writing IO code, like Haskell?

In Haskell can't you still program nearly 100% imperatively, just by wrapping stuff in the IO mondad?

    mysquare  x = x * x
    mysquarer x = do
                    putStrLn "Hey look, it squared"
                    return (mysquare x)
    
    main = do
             putStrLn "Starting program..."
             x' <- mysquarer 9
             putStrLn (show x')

Or is he just arguing that we should write programs in functional languages but just with an imperative style (no points-free and simple use of IO)?

You could possibly explain this in the article then with the idea that intelligent people are more likely to be either really introverted or extroverted and that the introverted ones tend not to do this sort of thing, leaving just the extroverted of the smart people to get laid?

Sort of similar to the risk-aversion idea here, except with introversion. I do have smart friends who do this, they just happen to also be reasonably extroverted

This is Kent M Pitman replying to cba...@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry)

    def arc
      with->>= name input
        link "click here"
        display++ "you said: " name

Text: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-4.html#...

Videos: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.001/abelson-sussma...

I'd recommend at least the first video lecture and see if you like it.

But when you think about it, under this reality, how could free will possibly exist? Everything I do is a direct consequence of the past, modulo some possible quantum randomness if you believe in that, but even the randomness wouldn't give me a free will.

Isn't it always the case that science is built on a matter of faith though? I have faith that I'm not in a matrix-like reality, and there's no real way to know if I was in one, so I just set it aside, and instead work within the model of reality I see.

And if you do assume that the this reality does hold consistently (you don't really have much choice to decide otherwise), surely you can learn and know about how stuff works within that reality. Or am I missing something?

Though your points are pretty valid, the parent wasn't arguing that C was at the lowest level.

Plus surely you can provide your own low level implementation of malloc and free for the platform and you'll still be programming C.

Don't bother answering, I'm really confused. Why doesn't the world use XML and XSLT? I give up. I'm gonna just code using tables from now on.. o_O

Edit: Oh actually I presume you're implying the ability to easily swap stylesheets, and that would be a valid point.

State birth control... what, are you in favour of it?

Edit: why is this here?

Because lots of dictator wannabes like the idea that there's only enough space in the world for them, and that there is this really big problem of population that only someone as calculating as them can grasp. I'm sorry but this really pisses me off. We have lots of energy and lots of space, go and play with a ball and have fun.

Edit: yes a typo, thanks.

The article agrees with this assertion, Wikipedia agrees with this assertion and I agree with this assertion. Why is it a mistake to assert this? Granted you point to earlier type theory which I was unaware of, but my claim wasn't that lambda calculus was original.

If you look at that, you'll discover, for example, that while having functions as first-class citizen was always a definite requirement of functional programming, neither immutable state nor TCO ever were.

Here is another big gripe of mine. Given that there are practical reasons for the earlier functional languages to have been different from the lambda calculus (speed and memory), why continue using those languages as metrics later on when the limitations of speed and memory no longer apply?

I'm not sure how you have arrived at Lisp being your ad hoc definition of functional programming, but it frightens me.

The main issue here is that the article isn't saying that only the lambda calculus is functional programming but it is saying that the whole paradigm is based on the lambda calculus and so to determine how functional a language is, you determine how similar it is to the lambda calculus.

Wikipedia on functional programming:

"Functional programming has its roots in the lambda calculus, a formal system developed in the 1930s to investigate function definition, function application, and recursion. Many functional programming languages can be viewed as embellishments to the lambda calculus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming