...

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #121,836 by admin 10/18/03 1:32:39 PM Reply	... I have a degree in algorithmic mathematics. Of course I've been through proof by induction. :-) I know how recursion works, and I can figure it out. However, it doesn't come instantly to understanding. While the same thing might be said for functional programming, I don't have as much of an issue with it for some reason. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #121,839 by deSitter 10/18/03 1:49:38 PM Reply	(sheepish grimace) Yes, recursion is trivial in APL, the prototype for a functional language. -drl
Post #121,842 by JimWeirich 10/18/03 2:51:28 PM Reply	Recursion and Lisp I had Daniel Friedman (author of the Little Lisper) as a first year CS instructor in college. The class was supposed to be an introduction to FORTRAN (that dates me!). But when I went to class, Prof. Friedman kept writing code on the board that had way too many parenthesis for FORTRAN. I spent about three days in class absolutely confused and lost. Around the third day understanding dawned and recursion (and LISP) started making a lot of sense. Its a powerfull tool to have on your workbench. If you ever come across a copy of the Little Lisper (or Little Schemer), its a fairly gentle way to become comfortable with recursion (and a lot of other ideas). The books are written in a style that's not too different from the way Friedman teaches. -- -- Jim Weirich jweirich@one.net [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Post #121,845 by admin 10/18/03 3:31:03 PM Reply	You still misunderstand me. I'm perfectly comfortable reading and writing recursive code. I just don't find it the easiest code for immediate understanding. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #121,853 by deSitter 10/18/03 8:05:14 PM Reply	Re: You still misunderstand me. Well, I think it probably is psychologically harder, because in the back of your mind you're worrying about the recursion converging. -drl

Combinatron - (tablizer) - (39) - Oct. 15, 2003, 06:44:35 PM EDT

Python example (using generators) - (admin) - (3) - Oct. 15, 2003, 07:25:59 PM EDT

Nice language - reads as easy as pseudocode - (deSitter) - (2) - Oct. 15, 2003, 07:51:28 PM EDT

Post the code. -NT - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2003, 09:23:31 PM EDT

The idiom - (deSitter) - Oct. 16, 2003, 06:10:13 AM EDT

OK, so the generators were nifty, but not needed :-) - (admin) - (34) - Oct. 15, 2003, 07:30:15 PM EDT

Probably more efficient: - (admin) - (33) - Oct. 15, 2003, 07:34:53 PM EDT

And the readable version :P - (FuManChu) - (32) - Oct. 16, 2003, 12:12:40 AM EDT

Ick. Globals. - (admin) - (31) - Oct. 16, 2003, 11:12:49 AM EDT

Granted. - (FuManChu) - (30) - Oct. 16, 2003, 03:32:18 PM EDT

Like this? - (admin) - (29) - Oct. 16, 2003, 04:32:00 PM EDT

This is probably worth decomposing, too - (admin) - Oct. 16, 2003, 05:02:10 PM EDT

Now you've EARNED my nasty Perl tricks... - (ben_tilly) - (25) - Oct. 16, 2003, 07:31:28 PM EDT

Yabut... - (admin) - (20) - Oct. 16, 2003, 07:29:32 PM EDT

Re: Yabut... - (deSitter) - (1) - Oct. 16, 2003, 07:56:41 PM EDT

Appearances *are* complexity - (FuManChu) - Oct. 16, 2003, 08:00:38 PM EDT

They can? - (ben_tilly) - (17) - Oct. 16, 2003, 07:58:47 PM EDT

Ruby? (Perl was impressive, knock me out dude) -NT - (deSitter) - (15) - Oct. 16, 2003, 08:04:07 PM EDT

Sorry, I am rusty enough not to attempt it - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 16, 2003, 08:11:02 PM EDT

Two Ruby Versions - (JimWeirich) - (13) - Oct. 17, 2003, 05:23:19 PM EDT

Recursive + stack space... - (admin) - (10) - Oct. 17, 2003, 05:30:56 PM EDT

Re: Recursive + stack space... - (JimWeirich) - (7) - Oct. 17, 2003, 06:31:32 PM EDT

Ah, ok. - (admin) - (6) - Oct. 18, 2003, 01:15:01 PM EDT

Proof by induction - (deSitter) - (5) - Oct. 18, 2003, 01:28:31 PM EDT

... - (admin) - (4) - Oct. 18, 2003, 01:32:39 PM EDT

(sheepish grimace) - (deSitter) - Oct. 18, 2003, 01:49:38 PM EDT

Recursion and Lisp - (JimWeirich) - (2) - Oct. 18, 2003, 02:51:28 PM EDT

You still misunderstand me. - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 18, 2003, 03:31:03 PM EDT

Re: You still misunderstand me. - (deSitter) - Oct. 18, 2003, 08:05:14 PM EDT

Only other people's... :) - (FuManChu) - (1) - Oct. 18, 2003, 05:34:05 PM EDT

No, I should go look that one up. -NT - (admin) - Oct. 18, 2003, 09:20:21 PM EDT

Let me golf the one-liner a little... - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Oct. 17, 2003, 06:18:01 PM EDT

Ooo ... Good call on split - (JimWeirich) - Oct. 17, 2003, 06:48:44 PM EDT

Wrong interpretation. - (admin) - Oct. 16, 2003, 08:26:45 PM EDT

Please deconstruct it for me - (broomberg) - (3) - Oct. 16, 2003, 07:37:25 PM EDT

Deconstructed - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Oct. 16, 2003, 07:56:38 PM EDT

Ahh - (broomberg) - (1) - Oct. 17, 2003, 01:55:58 PM EDT

Ditto, but I remember the stupid trick for golf -NT - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 17, 2003, 02:01:30 PM EDT

Mein Gott. - (FuManChu) - (1) - Oct. 16, 2003, 07:56:33 PM EDT

Yep. It's a great language. -NT - (admin) - Oct. 16, 2003, 08:28:10 PM EDT

Dim Sum for brunch!
295 ms