You can't rely on how these languages describe mapping.
Says who? You didn't back this claim up with anything.
Map doesn't simply iterate
No one has ever said it 'only' iterates, you hallucinated this claim. The whole point that I've made is that just because a language like haskell uses recursion for iteration, it doesn't mean iteration and recursion are the same thing or that things that iterate have anything to do with recursion.
> Says who? You didn't back this claim up with anything.
Why would I need to back that up ?
> No one has ever said it 'only' iterates, you hallucinated this claim. The whole point that I've made is that just because a language like haskell uses recursion for iteration, it doesn't mean iteration and recursion are the same thing or that things that iterate have anything to do with recursion.
Why the mention of haskell all the time ? I'm not even talking about statically typed languages here.
The original conversation was about the intellectual benefits of recursion, not iteration == recursion. Recursion is a way to think about problems that I find more general, precise, creative and economical I tried to convey why, I'm not the most precise but this is getting nowhere. Feel free to enjoy your life.
Why do you need to back up the things you say? Because if someone believes anything without an explanation then they don't know what's true.
Why the mention of haskell all the time ?
Because you wrote haskell -> foldl f z (x:xs) = foldl f (f z x) xs
The original conversation was about the intellectual benefits of recursion
No, you made very abstract and bizarre claims like recursion is compressing the domain so small it eats itself, it's creating self sustaining computing blocks, and use tiny function that will thread themselves as see fit.
Statements like this that aren't even really coherent sentences, let alone explainable, are the types of things that happen when no one asks anyone to back up what they say. Evangelism starts to bleed into religion and anyone questioning the grandiose hyperbole is dismissed as an adversary.
Asking to back things up is not asking for an explanation. You keep asking for authoritative arguments instead of discussing, it's very tense..
I just copy pasted the first line of code in wikipedia, the definition is the same in ocaml, and in spirit scheme (list pattern matching syntax aside).
You're forcing your views on me, thinking I'm defending a Haskell cult which I'm not. Most of this came before Haskell was a language name idea. Probably even back to the late 60s.
And yes inductive reasoning is about compressing the domain in a finite set of disjoint cases that "eat itself" because you can reuse other parts of that domain in substructures. Wrapping all required information as function argument makes them self sustainable / encapsulated because nothing leaks out. It's not that much of a bizarre claim.
You keep asking for authoritative arguments instead of discussing,
I'm just asking for something and you haven't given anything but big claims of the benefits of recursion without any explanations or example comparisons.
And yes inductive reasoning is about compressing the domain in a finite set of disjoint cases that "eat itself" because you can reuse other parts of that domain in substructures. Wrapping all required information as function argument makes them self sustainable / encapsulated because nothing leaks out.
This is still a grandiose claim without any explanation of what it is supposed to mean, let alone any explanation of why it is true, especially in comparison to other languages. Every language has functions.
