Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> what "all(@ar1) < any(@ar2)" is supposed to mean. That's not a complicated expression and that's already puzzling to people who know the language?

Afaik junctions are simple and have an obvious intuitive read. But I'm not yet 100% confident of expressing that view without qualification. Given Estragon's "no idea" comment I allowed that my intuitive read might be bogus.

In fact the intuitive read is correct:

  if all(ar1) < any(ar2)

  # if all in ar1 are numerically less than any in ar2
> The autothreading feature is cool

To be clear, the whole point of junctions is autothreading; passing junctions to any code that does not have an overload for junctional arguments is automatically (semantically, at least) data parallelized and that's the win that makes them significant.

> Every pure functional language can implement map/reduce/filter in parallel.

I note "can implement" and your choice of just three functions.

Which languages provide a mechanism equivalent to junctions and their most significant use-case -- automatically generating data parallelized versions of any sequential functionally pure code?

> I don't see what junctions bring to the table that's not expressed easier to understand with set operations or map/reduce/filter.

What equivalent of "all(ar1) < any(ar2)" -- all ar1 less than any ar2 -- is "expressed easier to understand"?



Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: