1. 25
    1. 12

      Am I the only who read the title as “… is pointless”? :-)

      1. 4

        You’re not alone. I read that too.

    2. 3

      The age of functional programming will soon be over.

      How can it be over before it has come?

      1. 8

        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())).

        1. 2

          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.

        2. 1

          Thanks. I didn’t even know I’m (an occasional) point-free programmer :-)

    3. 3

      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.


      1. 2

        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!

      2. 1

        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.

      3. 1

        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.

        1. 1

          a simple Forth (subset)

          1. 1

            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!

    4. 2

      (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.

      1. 1

        Good call, thanks!

      2. 1