Talk:Tacit programming

Computer science Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Template:Findsourcesnotice

The stack-based example does not indicate wether it is in a pseudo-language or an existing one. I think it should (and preferably use an existing one). Nowhere man (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perl?

Does Perl count? You don't have to name function arguments in Perl, they all end up in the @_ array. I'll leave it to somebody else to consider. --68.32.37.109 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J example

The statement "In J one can see the same sort of point-free code" is false. The J relies heavily on verb trains and even the example is one - fork. Without this stated, example is totally confusing as monadic fork (+/ % #) x is translated to (+/ x) % (# x). In other words, it's total bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.111.133 (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of category theory

The article currently makes the claim that currying is an example of a natural transformation of functors, specifically a Hom from some categories to some other categories. I suspect this is a misuse of category theory (see also the discussion on Currying#Mathematical_view). What we're dealing with here are *functions* from sets to sets, not *functors* from categories to categories. There is no reason that a function needs to be an object in a hom-set.

This change was made here: [1]. The author may be knowledgable in category theory, or may have just been overly excited that category theory might be relevant here. Or I could be wrong.

Leo C Stein (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Functions are morphisms of the category of sets, which by definition corresponds to all small categories and by my recent enhancement of the exponential object entry means for $A,C$ small categories $C^{A}=\mathrm {Hom} (A,C)$ . Currying relies upon the category and morphism induced by a morphism from a direct product of Cartesian closed categories $A\times B$ to category $C$ . The existence of $\mathrm {Hom} (C^{A}\times B,C)$ should be obvious. By hypothesis $\mathrm {Hom} (A\times B,C)$ exists, and thus a homomorphism is induced between the two direct products. This applies to currying because the small set exponential category $C^{A}$ (somewhat analogous to the power set) corresponds to the space of functions $f:A\to C$ . This is a universal object induced by the morphism in question that encompasses currying on even uncountable sets; but just in case I'm going to change the expression to the less specific $\mathrm {Hom} (A\times B,C)\cong \mathrm {Hom} (B,C^{A})$ . I'm going to remove the citation request, though.