Comments for On Clojure

Comment on A monad tutorial for Clojure programmers (part 1) by Map and Reduce Monad for Clojure… What about a Juxt Monad? | PHP Developer Resource

Thu, 24 May 2012 00:08:48 +0000

[...] 1. The Identity Monad (or the ‘let’ monad) taken from http://onclojure.com/2009/03/05/a-monad-tutorial-for-clojure-programmers-part-1/ [...]

Comment on A monad tutorial for Clojure programmers (part 3) by noobgp

noobgp — Sat, 05 May 2012 00:16:28 +0000

PRNG’s seed is also an input, so PRNGs are deterministic. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be pseudo-random, but just random.

The Fibonacci sequence (with one input, sequence element number) wouldn’t be deterministic when feeded by a single outside-entropy integer?

Am I missing something?

Comment on A monad tutorial for Clojure programmers (part 3) by noobgp

noobgp — Sat, 05 May 2012 00:14:53 +0000

PRNG’s seed is also an input, so PRNGs are deterministic. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be pseudo-random, but just random.

The Fibonacci sequence wouldn’t be deterministic when feeded by a single outside-entropy integer?

Am I missing something?

Comment on A monad tutorial for Clojure programmers (part 1) by Anonymous functions inside other function definitions for Clojure and monads nirvana | Japila :: verba docent, exempla trahunt

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:10:11 +0000

[...] an email that A monad tutorial for Clojure programmers (part 1) was corrected with the latest changes around clojure.algo.monads. I almost immediately began [...]

Comment on A monad tutorial for Clojure programmers (part 1) by Jacek Laskowski

Jacek Laskowski — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:47:02 +0000

Read it again and it all makes a better sense to me now. Thanks.

Comment on A monad tutorial for Clojure programmers (part 1) by khinsen

khinsen — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:26:32 +0000

Right, Clojure has made some progress since I wrote this post. I just updated part 1 and I will continue with the remaining parts – thanks for the reminder!

Comment on A monad tutorial for Clojure programmers (part 1) by Tim Harper

Tim Harper — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:50:13 +0000

Monads have moved in Clojure 1.3! Could you maybe update this post?

One must import algo.monads via `lein deps`

(defproject monads-test “1.0.0-SNAPSHOT”
:description “Monads for fun”

:dependencies [[org.clojure/clojure "1.3.0"]
[org.clojure/algo.monads "0.1.0"]])

Then, the use command is (use ‘clojure.algo.monads)

Thank you!

Comment on Computing with units and dimensions by Eric Fraga

Eric Fraga — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:11:47 +0000

Ah, I see! Sorry I misunderstood your point. I agree completely that adding conversions between Celsius and Fahrenheit is not worth the effort. So long as Kelvin is there, I’m happy!

Comment on Computing with units and dimensions by khinsen

khinsen — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 15:04:32 +0000

Kelvin is in there, of course, it’s an SI unit after all. Adding Rankin is trivial, as is adding most other units: All it takes is a defunit statement containing the conversion factor to some already known unit combination. What’s not possible without adding lots of code is units whose zero is non-standard, which in practice means Celsius and Fahrenheit.

Comment on Computing with units and dimensions by Eric Fraga

Eric Fraga — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:19:05 +0000

If I may comment on this: “I don’t think that introducing that amount of complexity is justified, considering that daily-life temperatures are rarely combined in computations with quantities of other dimensions.”:

It is true that working with temperatures can be complex, especially if you allow the use of non-0 based scales like Celsius and Fahrenheit. However, if you stick to Kelvin (and/or Rankin), there is little complexity. More to the point, there are plenty of problems that require combining temperatures with other units, especially in chemical engineering and physics problems dealing with heat transport.

I would really appreciate you reconsidering the above, at least adding support for Kelvin (and/or Rankin)! If I get a chance, and if my Clojure expertise is up to it, I may have a go myself, but I assume it should be trivial for you to do.

Thanks, in any case, for what looks like a great addition to the Clojure-verse!