I'm trying to solve a puzzle that uses a grid of data in Haskell. Why can't I use a good old for loop and change parts of the grid like grid[2][5] = 'Y'? I thought functional programming was supposed to be superior.
I'm trying to solve a puzzle that uses a grid of data in Haskell...
Luke James
Other urls found in this thread:
hackage.haskell.org
codewars.com
twitter.com
Ryder Howard
It's superior for people with actual intelligence. Obviously you don't apply. Go back to JavaScript.
John Hughes
/thread
Zachary Howard
rekt
Nolan Brooks
Learn what STU and forM_ are,
Robert Evans
If you want something "similar" on the surface to a loop, use list comprehension. Otherwise recursion is your only choice. Remember functional programming is supposed to describe a program for what it is rather than creating it as a set of instructions, so you'll most likely have to rethink the whole thing.
Liam Campbell
just use STUArrays like the monkey you are:
hackage.haskell.org
Hudson Morales
>Nigger thinks programming languages should bend to his will because he's too retarded to learn
Carson Clark
Loops are just syntactic sugar.
Anyway, your problem can easily be solved using nothing more than a map.
Dylan Edwards
show your code and explain what you're trying to do
Depending on the type of the "grid' you're talking about and whether you're using monads or not it can be very different
Jason Gutierrez
z = [ [5, 5, 5], [6, 6, 6], [7, 7, 7] ]
coord = (1, 1)
newVal = 90
I want
f z coord newVal = [ [5, 5, 5], [6, 99, 6], [7, 7, 7] ]
I understand lists are linked lists and I probably shouldn't be using them in this manner. I will look into STUArrays
Jack Morales
sorry I meant newVal = 99
Gabriel Evans
>I understand lists are linked lists and I probably shouldn't be using them in this manner
Yes, that is correct. Why are you trying to destructively update a data structure in the first place? What are you trying to solve? If you are going to use haskell to program imperatively, you shouldn't bother learning it.
Brayden Turner
>Haskell
Haskell not for programming
Haskell for people who love to learn something
Henry Clark
>*programs an os in it*
nothing personnel, kiddo
Aaron Brown
Because that kind of update violates referential transparency. It's the price to pay for functional purity. You can still have some limited forms of destructive update without breaking referential transparency by using either the ST monad or the upcoming linear types, but you should only resort to ST if you have no other choice.
Henry Miller
I'm trying to do this (For fun) in haskell codewars.com
Samuel Thompson
programs and programed is different
Tyler Cox
based
Alexander Thompson
Code like grid[2][5] = 'Y' can cause errors. Instead, try using a StateMonadTransformer prism. This lifts the state update to a functor over the algebra of StateMonad arrows. This is both safer and more readable.
Zachary Howard
I read this post in an autistic nasally voice
Luke Martinez
I ended up solving it without using monads. Just used simple recursion to make this function:
Henry Myers
SHITING IN TOILET can cause PROBLEMS. Instead, try using a SHIT DESOLVE RITUAL. This lifts the state SHIT DESOLVING to a RITUAL SHIT KEEPER BY SHITING UP VERICALY TO THE TOP SHIT GATHERER. This is both safer and more readable.
Hudson Stewart
>Just used simple recursion
it like counting from zero to 99 instead of direct acsess to 99
Oliver Parker
PYTHON superior over Haskell
Cameron Martin
You slow ass Haskellfags can suck your advisor's dick all day in grad school but you will eventually learn that int** is vastly superior to whatever broken piece of shit abstraction you are trying to talk about in this utter MEME of a language.
Michael Gutierrez
Yeah, I know enough about monads to call sequence on a list of Maybes, or to bind together a -> Either e a calls, but that's about it. Not there yet