Can you reorder your statements without changing the meaning of your
program? For example you cannot move the placement of the "return"
expression.
David
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Jules <julesjac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a new program. Perhaps you would consider this declarative:
>
> def valid(a,b,c,d):
> weights = set(w*a+x*b+y*c+z*d for (w,x,y,z) in
> product([-1,0,1],repeat=4))
> return weights >= set(range(1,41))
>
> ws = [(a,b,c,d) for (a,b,c,d) in product(range(1,41),repeat=4)
> if a <= b <= c <= d and a+b+c+d == 40 and
> valid(a,b,c,d)]
>
> On 12 nov, 01:48, Jules <julesjac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Are we reading the same cKanren code? I'll give you that the matches
> > definition is declarative, but then read checko and subchecko. They
> > are all about (recursive) control flow. Where does the specification
> > say anything remotely close to the checko and subchecko relations? In
> > contrast to this, the Python set comprehensions have minimal control
> > flow. Yeah, the standard Python implementation has a certain order of
> > executing the comprehensions, but so does the cKanren implementation
> > when executing the predicates. My Python program doesn't depend on
> > this order: it just uses declarative descriptions of sets as set
> > comprehensions.
> >
> > Just being written in cKanren doesn't make a program declarative. If
> > you write a C interpreter in cKanren and then write your actual
> > program in a literal string, that doesn't magically make the program
> > declarative even though it is a cKanren program. Similarly, checko and
> > subchecko don't describe the problem in a declarative way. Compare
> > this with the Python valid() function: the set of possible weights you
> > can make has to be a superset of {1..40}. Again, declarativeness is a
> > property of programs, not languages. Some languages make writing
> > declarative programs easier, of course. cKanren is supposed to be such
> > a language, so it would be neat to see a more declarative cKanren
> > program for this problem.
> >
> > Also, I don't see how "one stone should weigh 1lbs" is part of the
> > specification. Now, it is true that the answer happens to have one
> > stone equal to 1, but how is that part of or trivially follows from
> > the specification? We might as well hard-code the whole solution.
> >
> > Jules
> >
> > On 12 nov, 00:49, Timothy Baldridge <tbaldri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > My Python code is much more declarative than the given
> > > > cKanren code in that regard. Just compare:
> http://dosync.posterous.com/another-taste-of-ckanren
> >
> > > I don't think you understand what declarative programming is at its
> > > core. Declarative programming
> >
> > > To borrow from the ever-present wikipedia:
> > > "declarative programming is a programming paradigm that expresses the
> > > logic of a computation without describing its control flow.[1] Many
> > > languages applying this style attempt to minimize or eliminate side
> > > effects by describing what the program should accomplish, rather than
> > > describing how to go about accomplishing it.[2] This is in contrast
> > > with imperative programming, which requires an explicitly provided
> > > algorithm." (see: Declarative Programming)
> >
> > > This is where the cKanren code succeeds where the Python code fails.
> > > The Python code is all algorithm, and no facts. While the cKanren code
> > > is a direct implementation of the facts about the problem: one stone
> > > must be 1lb all stones should equal 40lb, etc. The cKanren code leaves
> > > the interpretation of these facts up to the logic engine, while the
> > > Python code sets strict guidelines that the compiler must follow. If,
> > > for instance, it was faster for a given computer to count down from
> > > instead of counting up, the Python code would run much slower, by
> > > defining the algorithm (by using range, and for loops), you're
> > > restricting the interpreter to your view of how to solve the problem.
> > > The cKanren compiler/interpreter/whatever is free to solve the problem
> > > in any way it pleases, as long as the requirements (facts) are met.
> > > The original problem states "find 4 numbers that equal 40 but a
> > > combination of any of which can be 1 through 40" it says nothing of
> > > range sequences, for loops, etc.
> >
> > > Timothy
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
