It is a literary device meant to convey that the writer is writing to us from the future. The name of the project itself is a play on the term point free programming where the majority of values are they themselves calls to functions, this(is(),an(),example(extreme())).
I’m not sure your example really conveys the idea explained in the Wikipedia article you linked to. Point-free programming is not just about many function calls, but the composition of partially applied curried functions. If we have a function
doubleListItems xs = map (\x -> x * 2) xs
the point-free version of this would be
doubleListItems = map (* 2)
The second version doesn’t mention any arguments, it merely composes functions.
I’m learning F# now, I’m practicing with Exercism exercises (they provide tests and exercise description). One exercise is a simple Forth (subset). After skimming this article (only superficially, as I had a pretty long day) I found some aspects similar to my solution.
I share it if anybody might be interested. Feedback is welcome, but keep in mind, it is practise, not meant to be fast/efficient/optimal/user friendly. Actually it has no shell/repl.
I don’t know anything about F#, so I can’t give much feedback, but it looks neat! I can see some similarities to the Pointless code. Thanks for sharing!
I’ve been doing exercism for Elixir and I am really looking forward to the Forth problem. It seems like it’ll be fun and I really want to see what the community solutions look like.
But it’s only technically a subset of Forth. It’s a stack machine that processes generic stack machine instructions, with a forth-inspired word definition mechanism. Forth is : forth stacks blocks words ; (little in-joke there). It doesn’t even have an address/return stack!
(just a total side-note on the site: You might not want to add the <header> to the <main> body, because otherwise it gets rendered in the (Firefox) reader view.
Am I the only who read the title as “… is pointless”? :-)
You’re not alone. I read that too.
How can it be over before it has come?
It is a literary device meant to convey that the writer is writing to us from the future. The name of the project itself is a play on the term point free programming where the majority of values are they themselves calls to functions,
this(is(),an(),example(extreme())).I’m not sure your example really conveys the idea explained in the Wikipedia article you linked to. Point-free programming is not just about many function calls, but the composition of partially applied curried functions. If we have a function
the point-free version of this would be
The second version doesn’t mention any arguments, it merely composes functions.
Thanks. I didn’t even know I’m (an occasional) point-free programmer :-)
I’m learning F# now, I’m practicing with Exercism exercises (they provide tests and exercise description). One exercise is a simple Forth (subset). After skimming this article (only superficially, as I had a pretty long day) I found some aspects similar to my solution.
I share it if anybody might be interested. Feedback is welcome, but keep in mind, it is practise, not meant to be fast/efficient/optimal/user friendly. Actually it has no shell/repl.
https://gist.github.com/kodfodrasz/d9a8054d6d5d86ff5a2687d51150f02d
I don’t know anything about F#, so I can’t give much feedback, but it looks neat! I can see some similarities to the Pointless code. Thanks for sharing!
I’ve been doing exercism for Elixir and I am really looking forward to the Forth problem. It seems like it’ll be fun and I really want to see what the community solutions look like.
Where’s the return stack, or the dictionary? The immediate time macros? Memory?
It’s very cool, but it’s just a stack computer. Forth at a minimum is a two stack language.
But it’s only technically a subset of Forth. It’s a stack machine that processes generic stack machine instructions, with a forth-inspired word definition mechanism. Forth is
: forth stacks blocks words ;(little in-joke there). It doesn’t even have an address/return stack!(just a total side-note on the site: You might not want to add the
<header>to the<main>body, because otherwise it gets rendered in the (Firefox) reader view.Good call, thanks!
)