|
|
|
|
|
by javajosh
4188 days ago
|
|
At 20 lines, defining functions feels dry and mathematical and we're much more attracted to the notion of doing things (or, making the computer do things) I think the "feels dry" problem can be solved by always writing functions in an environment rich with sample inputs and which passively calls your function for you! The text of a function would be the central component of a screen with all kinds of 'doo-dads' poking, prodding, testing, exercising that function in all kinds of interesting combinations. What this does is underscore the concrete utility of a function, which is fundamentally tied to the application to concrete arguments (and it's ability to cooperate with other functions. Function application always results in a flurry of instructional von Neumann-esque side-effects; and I don't think that can be avoided without violating the Second Law. |
|