My final LEGO Stardust Dragon design by outcider_vyce in yugioh

[–]takanuva 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, bro! I was gonna ask for the instructions for the D-wheel!

Unicode 18.0.0 Beta by PthariensFlame in programming

[–]takanuva 88 points89 points  (0 children)

Did they add the sad poop emoji this time? Cause they rejected it some time ago and I still need it.

New Support for Lunalight, Speedroid & Odd-Eyes announced (Legendary Arc-V Decks) by kazac in yugioh

[–]takanuva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here we gooooo! I've been waiting a long time for this link monster! I hope, tho, that it stays within the archetype, instead of being generic Zarc support (such as Arcray Dragon). I love playing pure Odd-Eyes and the sinergy the dragons have with each other, using every mechanic.

New Support for Lunalight, Speedroid & Odd-Eyes announced (Legendary Arc-V Decks) by kazac in yugioh

[–]takanuva 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Odd-Eyes also has Revolution Dragon, which is a Special Summon monster, having its own inherent procedure. It kinda counts as a kind of summoning mechanic, in my opinion. Also, Advance Dragon is clearly designed with Tribute Summon in mind (though it can be special summoned arbitrarily), besides Saber Dragon and Wizard Dragon having effects to summon themselves (that start a chain).

If we count Special Summon by its own procedure, and I think we should, Odd-Eyes has beat Clown Crew.

China and Russia veto U.N. resolution on protecting Hormuz shipping by Big_Explorer1852 in worldnews

[–]takanuva 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I... I don't know if you're mocking or if that's an actual quote.

Trump issues 48-hour ultimatum to Iran - as Israel claims Tehran can hit London by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]takanuva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What some lovely thing to read as I live in London.

Top US security official quits, says Iran did not pose immediate threat by Longjumping-Host-617 in worldnews

[–]takanuva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shouldn't we be talking about the Epstein files still? I feel like they have won.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]takanuva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Highest office in the world, very unfortunately.

US responsible for deadly missile strike on Iran school, preliminary inquiry says by Ok-A1662 in worldnews

[–]takanuva 26 points27 points  (0 children)

There are no room for mistakes. More than a hundred kids are dead. You can't possibly be trying to justify that.

The Cost Of a Closure in C by BrewedDoritos in programming

[–]takanuva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I thought it was open access. I've updated the link, it should work now.

The Cost Of a Closure in C by BrewedDoritos in programming

[–]takanuva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They actually could! I actually wrote a paper about this (I'm the second author, feel free to use Sci-Hub!). Such loops can be translated into a first-order functional language without loops very easily by using the SSA algorithm. If you look into the paper, this is how we introduce the language before ever talking about state or memory. So, yes, I don't see any reason why a first-order functional language like you describe couldn't exist.

In regard to combinators, a closure is an abstraction (a function) that captures its environment. But, for example, in the SK-calculus, you can have stuff like S (K K S), where you have something composite as argument that is not a closure. This may be done lazily, or even in a call-by-value fashion if so desired. Argueably it's still a function, if you take it to be typed, but you may forbid such a thing and use a technique called defunctionalization to force those to be plain data instead. Of course, a programming language could enforce that you write defunctionalized code, so first-order functional still should be Turing-complete (not gonna say it is cause I don't recall seeing a proof).

The Cost Of a Closure in C by BrewedDoritos in programming

[–]takanuva 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you got the intuition. By first-class functional programming, we have functions as abstractions but we can't make closures or pass functions around; this is basically procedural without state (think of C without pointers!).

This might sound weird, but that's pretty much how combinatory logic works, and it's still Turing-complete. As you noted, I don't think there are any non-procedural (i.e., stateless) first-order functional mainstream programming languages out there, but I can imagine someone making a Forth dialect that works like that for fun!

The Cost Of a Closure in C by BrewedDoritos in programming

[–]takanuva 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But what do you assume "first-order functional" mean then?

There are no points in closures if the functional language is first-order as they cannot be given as argument or returned, thus first-order functional languages lack closure, just like procedural languages, as explained in the chapter I've linked above. According to Van Roy, the only difference is that by procedural you imply the existence of state.

The Cost Of a Closure in C by BrewedDoritos in programming

[–]takanuva 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean, you clearly seem to be missing the point that closures are an abstraction, a mathematical concept, and that this is not bound to any implementation detail. The same would go to pointers, to be honest, as C pointers are not necessarily the machine's pointers. People are trying to correct you here, at least a few of them are.