i starts at 0, checks if i is less than n (the first time it will be, no matter what), prints a "#", then increments i by 1 and loops
Why does the for loop repeat after it exits to print a new line? If it exits the loop, shouldn't it be done with it?
There's the new line after the for loop to make sure that the next recursion starts on a fresh line. Otherwise the next recursion would print on the same line, right where it left off, and you'd just have a line of "#"'s. The for loop itself is just for printing "#"'s.
Why is n incremented and not i as stated with i++?
I think this is a confusion with the recursion. Look at the line with draw(n - 1);
this happens before any printing of hashes happens, and only continues after its done. And it calls itself as long as it's not less than or equal to 0. To psuedo-code the order of operations here:
draw 3 {
draw 2 {
draw 1 {
draw 0 {};
print "#" * 1;
};
print "#" * 2;
};
print "#" *3;
};
so n is never incremented as you think, it just calls decremented versions of the draw function before the current one finishes. The i's are purely involved in the for loop, which only prints hashes. Does that make sense?
Although, i would agree with it not necessarily being "friendly", since its a drastically different syntax than many beginners would be used to, the brackets and parenthesis here are not what you think they are.
Unison is a language in the style of Haskell, F#, Purescript, Elm, etc. So that first line is actually type annotations.
In Haskell, this would just be helloWorld :: IO ()
, meaning a function named "helloWorld" with no arguments and produces what is essentally a potentially-unsafe IO action with a Void return (the empty parenthesis () ).
Here in Unison they call the bracket part "abilities" or something. Its saying the same thing as Haskell, but being more explicit in saying it can raise an exception.
No, but Nintendo, Xbox, and PS all would prefer not not share space with their competitors. And people will ultimately watch the separate showcases, with or without E3. And without NinBoxStation bringing eyeballs to E3 for their showcases, what does that leave to be shown at E3?
Pretty much. Also, Xbox has their own showcase, Nintendo has their showcase, and Playstation has their own showcase. To them, there's no need to double-up on hype showcases, and only indie and smaller publisher games are left out (to the benefit of the large publishers)
I think maybe starting with Leninism, what youre saying may be true, but not with Marxism. I think this comment explains it a bit well:
So the original Marxist idea would lead to withering-away of government, and thus zero parties, not one-party authoritarianism. But due to all the authoritarian implementations, people think of states like the USSR when they hear/see communism
The problem is these people are voted in by states who comprise of residents who have brain injuries, misogynistic views, extremist ideals, and/or a myriad of other skewed thoughts.
So unfortunately we get stuck with the consequences of other state's resident's decisions
Well I ask these cause authoritarianism seems counterintuitive to the main philosophy around Marxism. Saying "the proletariat should have greater value and power in a business, since they're doing the actual labor", but then rolling over and accepting a dictatorship where the populace has no political say seems nonsensical.
Hence why I suspect the authoritarianism must have come first. So I can't necessarily agree to "communism predisposing itself to authoritarianism" since it doesn't make sense for a True-Marxist society to want to accept that sort of government.
As for how to set up the government in a communist-economy state: probably more of a Republic. People elect multiple representatives, and these representatives meet and decide on policies for the country and how to run it
Every major country that has ever gone down the communist road ended up a dictatorship
While I don't think full-on Marxism is necessary and am in agreement on the democratic socialism, I think the reason for this is really more towards the political end of it than the economic.
If a country practicing a communist economy had a more representative/democratic political system from the start, I'd like to see how the results panned out. And I'd also like to see which came first, the dictatorship, or the communism. The former being first makes more sense than the latter.
Agreed. Functional languages really raised my standard for what a language could be.
Stronger typing. More functional flow. Less dumb errors.
@dneaves
@lemmy.world