Talk:1270: Functional - Revision history

Beanie at 12:11, 29 October 2024

2024-10-29T12:11:57Z

172.70.85.177 at 06:25, 27 March 2022

2022-03-27T06:25:56Z

108.162.219.148: explanation to the optimization that happens

2014-11-23T18:58:11Z

explanation to the optimization that happens

199.27.130.234 at 06:41, 26 October 2014

2014-10-26T06:41:02Z

Kynde at 21:59, 21 June 2014

2014-06-21T21:59:52Z

Magice at 05:24, 4 March 2014

2014-03-04T05:24:12Z

Mythobeast at 21:07, 3 March 2014

2014-03-03T21:07:39Z

Dgbrt at 19:22, 21 October 2013

2013-10-21T19:22:33Z

69.67.112.5 at 19:13, 21 October 2013

2013-10-21T19:13:57Z

69.67.112.5 at 19:12, 21 October 2013

2013-10-21T19:12:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:11, 29 October 2024
Line 134:		Line 134:

	I just reinstated a removed word, but it looks (unintentionally?) complicated as it is. It was one of two consecutive "that"s in a sentence with two other "that"s in, and perhaps not enough commas, semicolons, hyphens, emdashes and/or parentheses. I.e. "Another explanation is that the fact that that part of the title text is confusing is a metaphor for the fact that abstract mathematics and functional programming can be confusing" (then a clause-break comma and even more words...). Breaking it down "(the fact that) (that part)" is roughly "(an interpretation of) (a detail)". Or, to put it another way, that that "that" that that "that that" lost was necessary. But confusing. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.177\|172.70.85.177]] 06:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)		I just reinstated a removed word, but it looks (unintentionally?) complicated as it is. It was one of two consecutive "that"s in a sentence with two other "that"s in, and perhaps not enough commas, semicolons, hyphens, emdashes and/or parentheses. I.e. "Another explanation is that the fact that that part of the title text is confusing is a metaphor for the fact that abstract mathematics and functional programming can be confusing" (then a clause-break comma and even more words...). Breaking it down "(the fact that) (that part)" is roughly "(an interpretation of) (a detail)". Or, to put it another way, that that "that" that that "that that" lost was necessary. But confusing. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.177\|172.70.85.177]] 06:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	I didn't quite get this until I started programming in OCaml for university - haha he's absolutely right. It's so satisfying. [[User:Beanie\|<span style="text-shadow:0 0 5px black;font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie]]</span> [[User talk:Beanie\|<sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk]]</span></sup> 12:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:25, 27 March 2022
Line 132:		Line 132:
	"Computer programs are like cooking recipes: a ordered list of instructions. Usually, there are groups of instructions that are used regularly. To keep from copying and pasting these groups wherever they are needed, functions were created. When a computer executes a function, it jumps from the instruction it was executing to the first instruction of that function. When the function ends, the computer jumps back to the instruction that called the function (one after actually). Since functions can call other functions, the computer keeps a stack of function calls (and other things) to remember all the jumps it made. Think of it as a stack of heavy objects: usually, you can only move the topmost one. So, when the functions ends, the computer make the backward jumps in the reverse order they were stacked. A recursive function (explained above) may fill up the stack quickly. To avoid that, tail recursive functions (explained above) cause only the first function call to be stacked, no matter how many calls happen afterwards."		"Computer programs are like cooking recipes: a ordered list of instructions. Usually, there are groups of instructions that are used regularly. To keep from copying and pasting these groups wherever they are needed, functions were created. When a computer executes a function, it jumps from the instruction it was executing to the first instruction of that function. When the function ends, the computer jumps back to the instruction that called the function (one after actually). Since functions can call other functions, the computer keeps a stack of function calls (and other things) to remember all the jumps it made. Think of it as a stack of heavy objects: usually, you can only move the topmost one. So, when the functions ends, the computer make the backward jumps in the reverse order they were stacked. A recursive function (explained above) may fill up the stack quickly. To avoid that, tail recursive functions (explained above) cause only the first function call to be stacked, no matter how many calls happen afterwards."
	Also, out of topic but, with these comments, I found out that the editing box have a limit on how much you can stretch it downwards. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148\|108.162.219.148]] 18:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)		Also, out of topic but, with these comments, I found out that the editing box have a limit on how much you can stretch it downwards. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148\|108.162.219.148]] 18:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	I just reinstated a removed word, but it looks (unintentionally?) complicated as it is. It was one of two consecutive "that"s in a sentence with two other "that"s in, and perhaps not enough commas, semicolons, hyphens, emdashes and/or parentheses. I.e. "Another explanation is that the fact that that part of the title text is confusing is a metaphor for the fact that abstract mathematics and functional programming can be confusing" (then a clause-break comma and even more words...). Breaking it down "(the fact that) (that part)" is roughly "(an interpretation of) (a detail)". Or, to put it another way, that that "that" that that "that that" lost was necessary. But confusing. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.177\|172.70.85.177]] 06:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:58, 23 November 2014
Line 128:		Line 128:

	Maybe the long explanation should be a trivia item?[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 21:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)		Maybe the long explanation should be a trivia item?[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 21:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	I've read all of the explanation and all of the comments as of now. In all of it, I found no mention of explaining what the optimization itself consists of. In case it is one day decided to add that explanation, I want to add my 2 cents and explain it here, as readable to non-programmers as I can:
		+	"Computer programs are like cooking recipes: a ordered list of instructions. Usually, there are groups of instructions that are used regularly. To keep from copying and pasting these groups wherever they are needed, functions were created. When a computer executes a function, it jumps from the instruction it was executing to the first instruction of that function. When the function ends, the computer jumps back to the instruction that called the function (one after actually). Since functions can call other functions, the computer keeps a stack of function calls (and other things) to remember all the jumps it made. Think of it as a stack of heavy objects: usually, you can only move the topmost one. So, when the functions ends, the computer make the backward jumps in the reverse order they were stacked. A recursive function (explained above) may fill up the stack quickly. To avoid that, tail recursive functions (explained above) cause only the first function call to be stacked, no matter how many calls happen afterwards."
		+	Also, out of topic but, with these comments, I found out that the editing box have a limit on how much you can stretch it downwards. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148\|108.162.219.148]] 18:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:41, 26 October 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Am i the only one considering this can be presented also in opposition to Object Oriented Programming, where tail recursion is very difficult to achieve at execution time, and impossible to achieve at compilation time, due to the possibility of method overloading?[[Special:Contributions/193.190.231.132\|193.190.231.132]] 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)		Am i the only one considering this can be presented also in opposition to Object Oriented Programming, where tail recursion is very difficult to achieve at execution time, and impossible to achieve at compilation time, due to the possibility of method overloading?[[Special:Contributions/193.190.231.132\|193.190.231.132]] 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
		+	:Since tail recusion is special case of tail call you don't need to know where the last function called goes - you just replace call by jump - if you don't know where by indirect jump. AFAIK both clang and gcc are doing it and in FP this gives the 'continuation passing style' of programming. The problem with it is that you loose the stacktrace so usually it is done only for optimized builds. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.234\|199.27.130.234]] 06:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

	I'm getting the adblock message at the top.. on mobile. On an unrelated note, I laughed and I don't even get it. Edit: I'm also seeing an ad while seeing the message.[[Special:Contributions/50.159.5.112\|50.159.5.112]] 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)		I'm getting the adblock message at the top.. on mobile. On an unrelated note, I laughed and I don't even get it. Edit: I'm also seeing an ad while seeing the message.[[Special:Contributions/50.159.5.112\|50.159.5.112]] 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:59, 21 June 2014
Line 125:		Line 125:

	:Frankly, I don't think the point here is about what concept it is. Tail recursion is just one of the many peculiar aspects of functional programming that, frankly, does not make that much different in the long run. (Frankly, a loop is about 20 times easier than tail recursion in about 90% of the cases; same for passing functions around). However, those things are rewarding to play with in and of themselves (and who care about the long run anyway? In the long term, we are all dead). At least that how I think of this slide. [[User:magice\|magice]] ([[User talk:magice\|talk]])		:Frankly, I don't think the point here is about what concept it is. Tail recursion is just one of the many peculiar aspects of functional programming that, frankly, does not make that much different in the long run. (Frankly, a loop is about 20 times easier than tail recursion in about 90% of the cases; same for passing functions around). However, those things are rewarding to play with in and of themselves (and who care about the long run anyway? In the long term, we are all dead). At least that how I think of this slide. [[User:magice\|magice]] ([[User talk:magice\|talk]])
		+
		+	Maybe the long explanation should be a trivia item?[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 21:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:24, 4 March 2014
Line 123:		Line 123:

	[[User:Mythobeast\|Mythobeast]] ([[User talk:Mythobeast\|talk]]) 21:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)		[[User:Mythobeast\|Mythobeast]] ([[User talk:Mythobeast\|talk]]) 21:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Frankly, I don't think the point here is about what concept it is. Tail recursion is just one of the many peculiar aspects of functional programming that, frankly, does not make that much different in the long run. (Frankly, a loop is about 20 times easier than tail recursion in about 90% of the cases; same for passing functions around). However, those things are rewarding to play with in and of themselves (and who care about the long run anyway? In the long term, we are all dead). At least that how I think of this slide. [[User:magice\|magice]] ([[User talk:magice\|talk]])

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 3 March 2014
Line 111:		Line 111:

	Are we really certain "tail recursion" isn't also an innuendo for ongoing sexual relations? Tail is sometimes used as slang, and if it were received regularly, it would be tail recursion.{{unsigned ip\|69.67.112.5}}		Are we really certain "tail recursion" isn't also an innuendo for ongoing sexual relations? Tail is sometimes used as slang, and if it were received regularly, it would be tail recursion.{{unsigned ip\|69.67.112.5}}
		+
		+	;Explain the concept, not the history?
		+
		+	I think that this page would benefit from simplifying the beginning to explain the concept without providing all of the background. Background can be applied later. I would suggest this:
		+
		+	:Recursion is a common programming practice where a function calls itself. This can result in many layers of the function, all of which need to be kept track of until the program can get to the bottom layer. The last step of this process is to return the final value through all of the layers of function calls.
		+
		+	:If there is nothing left for a function to do when the lower level returns, then there is no longer a need to keep track of the state of that layer. Instead of creating a new layer, a compiler that is smart enough can overwrite the existing layer with the new layer. This means that the new layer will pass its results directly to whatever initially called the function and not have to waste time passing the results up the stack of function calls. Making use of this optimization is called ''tail recursion'', and it saves both time and memory requirements.
		+
		+	:Functional programming is a programming language style that appeals to people who spend a lot of time staring at the notation used to describe higher math. This notation commonly uses recursion and formulas that include entire other formulas as variables in a higher level formula. Tail recursion was first introduced as a more efficient manner of handling recursion within functional programming languages, and they are currently the only programming languages that support this optimization.
		+
		+	[[User:Mythobeast\|Mythobeast]] ([[User talk:Mythobeast\|talk]]) 21:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:22, 21 October 2013
Line 110:		Line 110:
	;Tail Recursion?		;Tail Recursion?

−	Are we really certain "tail recursion" isn't also an innuendo for ongoing sexual relations? Tail is sometimes used as slang, and if it were received regularly, it would be tail recursion.	+	Are we really certain "tail recursion" isn't also an innuendo for ongoing sexual relations? Tail is sometimes used as slang, and if it were received regularly, it would be tail recursion.{{unsigned ip\|69.67.112.5}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:13, 21 October 2013
Line 110:		Line 110:
	;Tail Recursion?		;Tail Recursion?

−	Are we really certain "tail recursion" isn't ~~a pun~~ for ongoing sexual relations? Tail is sometimes used as slang, and if it were received regularly, it would be tail recursion.	+	Are we really certain "tail recursion" isn't also an innuendo for ongoing sexual relations? Tail is sometimes used as slang, and if it were received regularly, it would be tail recursion.

@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 :::::::The number of numerical operations is actually the same (I omitted the steps of evaluating the products and differences), but you don't have to build up a large expression, before you can actually start multiplying. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 07:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
-'''Tail Recursion?'''
+;Tail Recursion?
 Are we really certain "tail recursion" isn't a pun for ongoing sexual relations? Tail is sometimes used as slang, and if it were received regularly, it would be tail recursion.