Comment by CyberDildonics
1 month ago
What is worthwhile to ponder has no bearing on what you say.
Ponder all you want, but what you said wasn't a reply to what I said.
Decades? You think that decades is long enough to get down to the fundamentals of a domain?
It is enough for this because people have been going around in circles constantly the entire time. It isn't the same people, it is new people coming in, thinking up something 'clever' like conflating execution and data, then eventually getting burned by it when it all turns into a quagmire. Some people never realize why their projects turned into a mess that can't move forward quickly without breaking or can't be learned without huge effort of edge cases.
It depends on the framework in which you're analyzing it.
No it doesn't. There are a bunch of fundamentals that are already universal that apply.
First is edge cases. If you make something like an array start acting like a function, you are creating an edge case where the same thing acts differently depending on context. That context is complexity and a dependency you have to remember. This increases the mental load you need to get something correct.
Second is dependencies. Instead of two separate things you now have two things that can't work right because they depend on each other. This increases complexity and mental load while decreasing modularity.
Third is that execution is always more complicated than data. Now instead of something simple like data (which is simple because it is static and self evident) you have it mixed with something complicated that can't be observed unless it runs and all of the states at each line or fragment are observed. Execution is largely a black box, data is clear. Mixing them makes the data opaque again.
It is clear now that you don't understand the claim. It sounds like like you're conflating pure and impure functions. It's obvious from context (did you even read the blog post?) that the title of the blog post is referring to pure functions.
You obviously can't treat an impure function as an array and no one would ever claim that. The blog itself isn't claiming that either given that the author is commenting on a nugget from Haskell documentation, and the author is explaining design choices in his own pure functional language.
Your three points only make sense if you're definition of "function" allows side effects. If we're talking about pure functions, then due to referential transparency, arrays are in fact equivalent to functions from contiguous subsets of the integers to another type, as the Haskell documentation indicates.
It sounds like like you're conflating pure and impure functions.
No I'm not, this applies to both in different ways.
If we're talking about pure functions, then due to referential transparency, arrays are in fact equivalent to functions
Never ever. You're talking about a function that generates data from an index, which is trivial to make. Just because it is possible to disguise it as an array in haskell, C++ or anything else doesn't mean it is a good idea. An array will have vastly different properties fundamentally and can be examined at any time because the data already exists.
Confusing the two is again conflating two things for no reason. Making a function that takes an index and returns something is a trivial interface, there is no value in trying to mix up the two.
Evidence of this can be found in the fact that you haven't tried to explain why this is a good idea, only that it works under haskell's semantics. Being clever with semantics is always possible, that doesn't mean conflating two things and hiding how things actually work is a good idea.
Notice that I never once in this discussion claimed that it was a "good idea". This is about research and experimentation. The blog post has the title because of the Haskell documentation. Also, claiming that the lack of an argument is evidence to the contrary is argument from silence, a logical fallacy.
The good idea surrounding this isn't about treating functions as data, but maintaining the purity of the type system allowing the implications of the type system to run their course. You seem to be a very pragmatic programmer and so the way Haskell builds up its own universe in terms of its own type system and Hask (the pseudo-category of Haskell objects) probably seems pointless to you. I can't say for certain, though.
I completely reject most of your claims because they appear to be incoherent within the framework of type theory and functional programming. It looks like you're using reasoning that applies only to procedural programming to attempt to prove why an idea in functional programming is bad.
1 reply →