On: Ante: A low-level functional language

[charleskinbote]

Thanks for sharing!

The dot product example gave me pause because map2 seems to be the same as zipWith. Does that exist in Ante? Without context I might have thought map2 was going to act as bimap. Take that for what you think it's worth :)

Also I might be having a brain fart -- but isn't the dot product in your example equal to 32?

[jfecher → charleskinbote]

map2 is indeed another name for zipWith. I believe I got that name from Racket if memory serves. Compared to zipWith I like its symmetry with the 1 argument map. I also wasn't aware of bimap! I can't seem to find a function of that name online, though I did find the BiMap haskell package, is that what you're referring to?

And yes, the dot product should be 32, thank you :)

[pwm → jfecher]

Not OP but they meant https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.16.1.0/docs/Data-...

As you have the normal map function for Functors (using Haskell):

  > :t fmap
  fmap :: Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

you can have bimap for Bifunctors:

  > :t bimap
  bimap :: Bifunctor p => (a -> b) -> (c -> d) -> p a c -> p b d

which specialised to pairs is:

  > :t bimap @(,)
  bimap @(,) :: (a -> b) -> (c -> d) -> (a, c) -> (b, d)

[eruditely → jfecher]

I was wondering why the dot product wasn't 32! Good thing I checked. Also this seems like a cool new language, I need to learn a functional language, I wonder how far this language will go in development.

[benniomars → charleskinbote]

I calculated the dot product in my head because it looked off. Then I calculated it in my computer. Then I came to the comment section before losing all confidence in what I thought was a dot product of two vectors.

[avgcorrection → charleskinbote]

As it turns out you and Haskell are wrong with regards to that naming while this language is correct.