Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:It has its uses (Score 1) 370

Here we disagree. I think the general way you program that sort of thing is via. a fold. I don't know Erlang but it has the classic folds:

foldl(Fun, Acc0, List) -> Acc1
foldr(Fun, Acc0, List) -> Acc1
Fun = fun((Elem :: T, AccIn) -> AccOut)
Acc0 = Acc1 = AccIn = AccOut = term()
List = [T]
T = term()

foldl is the preferred one for Erlang

Comment Re:It has its uses (Score 1) 370

I'm going to argue there are no special cases that don't fit.

the set of all possible for loops (no side effects) \subset the set of all possible hylomorphisms (generalizations of map reduce) \subset of all possible recursions.

That's why I wanted to see a real example, because of mathematically they can't exist.

As for accumulators over loops those can be usually handled via. a fold providing the reduction operation is associative. The initial and final state never present a problem.


I'll agree I was considering lazy part of functional. At this point I think purity allows for laziness and laziness demonstrates a lot of the advantages of purity. Otherwise you are backed to mixed paradigm which I dealt with other places in this thread. As for lazy with large amounts of data, Hadoop is lazy. So I'm not sure what you are saying.

Comment Re:Functional Programming Considered Harmful (Score 1) 370

What you are describing is not remotely how state is handled in functional languages today. What's done is there is a stateful monad (either State, Read, Writer, IO or State&IO) which allows for an imperative style language. That imperative language handles stateful objects and makes function calls to an engine. The engine is stateless. No one is passing around the entire state of the world.

Here is a classic paper from a quarter century ago that summarizes this approach:

Comment Re:Privacy (Score 1) 65

I'm guessing that sure, a lot of folks wouldn't care, but I would posit that the majority of the populace using social media even is NOT aware of the massive information collection going on, nor how it is used.

I doubt the difference is awareness so much as caring. Germany, in particular, is extremely sensitive to privacy reasons. What's more interesting is why the populace of some countries care so much more than others. German motivations seem obvious... but Russians would seem to have almost as much motivation and they're heavy users of social media.

Comment Re:Why is this surprising? (Score 1) 65

Gabbing, food-plate moneyshots, selfie-admiration and laughing at animals does not necessarily lead to productivity.

You're implying a causal relationship, which is contradicted by the existence of many other high-performing economies -- including the most productive countries -- that do have heavy social media usage.

Comment Re:This reminds me of the nuclear boy scout story. (Score 1) 169

Actually, I meant what I said.

Then you're just wrong, because decisions like this guy made have basically nothing to do with any sort of intelligence, and certainly not social intelligence (not by any definition of that phrase that I've ever seen). They do have something to do with motivation, but it's about the goal of the motivation, not the degree.

It's perfectly possible to have high intelligence across every category, including social intelligence, and still be foolish.

While this may be true, I think it is impossible to anticipate someone's actual social reasoning performance from any measure of social reasoning capacity to any useful degree.

Likely true, but irrelevant.

Comment Sound bite philosophy (Score 1) 152

Actually he does: opt out. It won't kill you to only buy entertainment which is DRM-free

True but a bit of a dodge really. That's like arguing that I always have the option to leave the US if I don't like the president. Technically true but highly unrealistic for all but the most severe cases of oppression. DRM is a problem (whether they realize it or not) but for most people it isn't something that they care about on a deep level so long as it doesn't conspicuously interfere with their daily lives. It's one of many little bits of friction in our daily lives which we have to work around. Fortunately we have some people fighting the good fight so there is hope.

This is not anticipated to be tolerable by 99% of the population. They don't actually know, because they'll never try it

I'm not about to try all sorts of things that I'm pretty sure I won't enjoy. To be sure I'm probably wrong about some of them but I am quite certain I've got a better idea about what I am willing to tolerate than anyone else.

This is how powerful corporations control people: by manipulating their unexamined assumptions of what they can tolerably live with.

Where do you get the idea that people do not examine what matters to them? People do this all the time.

They reasoned more or less thus: if happiness is having all your wants satisfied, the surest path to happiness is to want less.

Argument from a false premise. Happiness demonstrably does not arise from having all your wants satisfied and it's not automatic that wanting less will result in having more of your wants fulfilled.

If we want to do sound bite philosophy I think a better version is thus: Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get.

Comment Re:It depends on the use (Score 1) 370

ML is a cool language. I don't agree with you that SML issues are driven by lack of popularity. I think the problem was premature specification (essentially the same thing that happened to Common LISP). The spec requires consensus to change and thus SML stagnated. Others in the ML family like F# continue to good work SML started. Arbitrary length integer operations, expression type declaration, string formatting, translations, string joining... Those and many more are real issues.

Comment Re:This reminds me of the nuclear boy scout story. (Score 2) 169

The moral of the story is that even a stupid human being can be pretty smart. Particularly a sufficiently motivated stupid person.

That's an odd thing to say, since stupid is the antonym of smart. I think what you meant to say is:

The moral of the story is that even a foolish human being can be pretty smart. Particularly a sufficiently-motivated fool.

Foolishness is the opposite of wisdom, and the foolish/wise axis is roughly orthogonal to the stupid/smart axis.

Of course it also helps that intelligence comes in different flavors. Some people are good at spatial reasoning, others are good at verbal reasoning. But we often overlook social reasoning because it's not part of the traditional IQ tests. I think another reason that Social IQ testing hasn't caught on is that there is good reason to believe that social reasoning ability isn't fixed. Changes in attitude can strongly impair or enhance an individual's ability to process social information.

I don't think this has anything to do with social intelligence. It's perfectly possible to have high intelligence across every category, including social intelligence, and still be foolish. Wisdom/foolishness is in how you think about things more than in how your are able to think about things. Wise people consider the consequences of their actions carefully. I'm sure this guy was fully capable of thinking through what would happen if he got caught... he just didn't bother to do it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer