News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:I thought I understood recursion by d--b on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @05:45AM (#21823643)
C# equivalent:

    IEnumerable<int> filter(int p, IEnumerable<int> xs) {
     foreach(var j in xs)
      if (j % p > 0) yield return j;
    }
    
    IEnumerable<int> sieve(IEnumerable<int> s) {
     var p = s.First();
     yield return p;
     foreach(var e in sieve(filter(p,s.Skip(1))))
      yield return e;
    }
    
    var n = sieve(Enumerable.Range(2, 10000)).Skip(10).First();
Re:I thought I understood recursion by jayrwren on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @10:57AM (#21826128)
came here to point out that the author doesn't seem to know C# very well if they don't know about Enumerable.Range.
Re:I thought I understood recursion by m0skit0 on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @08:51AM (#21824744)
Less readable in my opinion and I'm more used to C# code than Haskell.
Re:I thought I understood recursion by jayrwren on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @10:58AM (#21826139)
I feel the opposite. I find the C# more readable than the Haskell. I haven't written C# regularly in 10yrs.
Re:I thought I understood recursion by d--b on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @10:51AM (#21826055)
It's awful indeed. But it's a translation of what haskell does. The imperative version would be much more readable in any case...
Re:I thought I understood recursion by lostmsu on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @11:45AM (#21826677)
Why did you write own filter, when you could just do .Where(j => j % p > 0)?