Egregoros · Phoenix Framework

Post

Remote status

Context

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

Well, fuck.

>Are they just bad and I am the one who is right?
As it turns out, no.

>nested functions and closures
maybe you should stop doing that and you could have global variables lol

>bad style, harder to reason about, test and debug
I have never seen reasonable Python code in my life.

TL;DR: I'm probably just literally clinically retarded.

RT: https://poa.st/objects/fdd471d1-b597-4d7c-ba59-472c501ae364

March 16th, The Hatkeshiator

@HatkeshiatorTND@annihilation.social remote

@WandererUber >closures
lisp gives you this for free btw

πρωτος

@protos@tsundere.love remote

@HatkeshiatorTND @WandererUber as does rust

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

>for free

March 16th, The Hatkeshiator

@HatkeshiatorTND@annihilation.social remote

@WandererUber @protos if you use a memory-efficient language like linear-lisp, you will feel like you downloaded more ram, because your programs will use no more than absolutely necessary.

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

I don't get why having closures is such a good thing.
duplicating the function and variables is by definition not just "absolutely necessary" memory but idk jack shit about functional so who knows how they do it.
In general though, claiming that Python programs become more readable when you use closures than with global state seems a bit dubious to me. Maybe I'd like it in functional programming though.

Replying to @WandererUber@poa.st

πρωτος

@protos@tsundere.love remote

@WandererUber @HatkeshiatorTND
in rust and possible also linear lisp, there is no duplication, the function chain compiles into an imperative loop

"readable" means "understandable". it's very easy to read the syntax of a program with mutable global state, actually understanding it is another matter entirely.

Replies

Replying to @protos@tsundere.love

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

my naive answer would be isn't that more about control flow than the variable being global or not?
Calling an object that encapsulates the state doesn't make it more understandable than just having a global edit_mode_toggle and toggling that within program flow...

>, there is no duplication, the function chain compiles into an imperative loop
this is more of a stack overflow/google stupid question I guess, but if the function is just made once and the language internally just passes a pointer to the variables it needs on execution, isn't that just a bit of syntactic sugar around doing that yourself? where's the closure part come in?
I got a bit less sleep so apologies if this is a dumb thing to ask