When it says "arrays, which may be thought of as functions whose domains are isomorphic to contiguous subsets of the integers", is it saying that this:
const list = ['a', 'b', 'c']
is syntactic sugar for expressing something like this:
function list(index) {
switch (index) {
case 0: return 'a'
case 1: return 'b'
case 2: return 'c'
}
}
No. Quick version: They have the same type. Both take an integer and return a string, so their type would be Integer -> String in your example.
They are computationally equivalent in the sense that they produce the same result given the same input, but they do not perform the exact same computation under the hood (the array is not syntactic sugar for the function).
For the distinction there, consider the two conventional forms of Fibonacci. Naive recursive (computationally expensive) and linear (computationally cheap). They perform the same computation (given sufficient memory and time), but they do not perform it in the same way. The array doesn't "desugar" into the function you wrote, but they are equivalent in that (setting aside call syntax versus indexing syntax) you could substitute the array for the function, and vice versa, and get the same result in the end.
I copy/pasted it into my editor to see it larger. I still used my brain. This 'test' is not a true test but a trick, and the trick doesn't have to do with programming ability.
So cool! Thanks for sharing. It reminds me of one of those very old cameras with the bellows or accordion. I wish I could look through it myself to see what you see with it!
This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I see that the man was Israeli in the original story and I don't want to presume a religious perspective, but I can share some thoughts from my own based on his story and yours. I've read the New Testament within a Jewish framework and one of the things it says, Rabbi Shaul says in 1 Corinthians 12:23 that those people in the community who are most embarrassing or cause us to blush, like the parts of our own body who are honoured or dignified by being clothed with underwear, likewise in the community are owed a special covering and to be afforded dignity by the other parts of the same body/community. Just something to think about in light of this story!
Back about 20 years ago there was a lightweight Gecko-based web browser called 'Camino' that was a delight compared to Firefox or other 'full' browsers. It was fast, simplified, and still rendered pages well. I didn't always use it, but it was a joy to use.
I downloaded Helium and gave it a spin and my first impression was "Ah, it's like Camino all over again". I can't use this for my job where I need to use stock {Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Edge} because our customers do - but for personal browsing I'm currently using Arc which is very comfortable but heavy, I might try to use Helium for quick simple things when I want less overhead! Thanks for sharing!
The PATH network is great, especially in Toronto's freezing cold and windy winters! The beautiful 'underpass' pictured in this article, with the white marble, is on my commute to work, and it really is breathtaking when you turn the corner.
In the Financial District, the various bank towers can be told apart by the colour of the marble and other stones they build with. For an underground walkway, some parts of it are really beautiful, other parts are just what you'd expect for an underground passage in a big city (especially those parts connected to the subway transit system).
“A webpage that counts down to a movie release.”
Not an app. Not a startup. Just a janky react/tailwind page.
Maybe part of the problem is trying to bite off more than you can chew, spinning up React and Tailwind for what could be a single HTML element, a CSS style rule or two, and a few lines of plain JavaScript code is a symptom here. This is like taking a cruise ship on a canoe trip and then complaining that it's too time consuming and difficult. Start simple, start small!
