Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

Last active July 14, 2023 22:20
Show Gist options
  • Save ftrain/8655399 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save ftrain/8655399 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Annotated rhyming dictionary
;; This is at:
;; So we want a rhyming dictionary in Clojure. Jack Rusher put up
;; this code here:
;; I'm going to study this code and learn as I go.
;; First I put it in a namespace.
(ns unscroll.rhyme
[clojure.string :as string]))
;; So that I can mess with it inside my current environment in
;; emacs.
;; Here is the first function.
(def rhyme-txt
(map #(string/split % #"[ ]+")
(slurp "data/cmudict.txt"))))
;; So this presumes a file called cmudict.txt, the CMU pronunciation
;; dictionary. Which is sort of an old standby for word nerds, like
;; WordNet too, from back in the day before everything was free and
;; a pronunciation dictionary in digital form felt like an almost
;; unbearably large gift from the Gods.
;; The format of the dictionary is such:
;; i.s. something like
;; So we (slurp) in the file, split the lines by newlines, and then
;; split on space.
;; Gotta love (slurp); one thing it took me a while to figure out
;; the other day is that slurp starts looking for files at the top
;; level of the Clojure project. Where the source files are means
;; nothing to Clojure (because they means nothing to the JVM); it's
;; the project that sets the path. Just putting this here to save
;; someone else the 20 minutes.
;; Anyway now that we've done that we can say:
;; (take 3 (drop 1010 rhyme-txt))
;; (Okay so we're not getting rid of comments in the dictionary
;; source or anything when we do this, it's fast-and-dirty. So for
;; purposes of the example we want to fast-forward past a bunch of
;; comments and miscellany to get a clear example, so start around
;; item 1010)
;; And we'd see
;; (["ACTUARY" "AE1" "K" "CH" "UW0" "EH1" "R" "IY2"]
;; ["ACTUATE" "AE1" "K" "CH" "UW2" "EY1" "T"]
;; ["ACTUATOR" "AE1" "K" "T" "Y" "UW0" "EY2" "T" "ER0"])
;; So now we're dealing with a list () of vectors [] where the first
;; value is a string representing word and the rest are strings
;; representing phonemes.
;; There's a lot going on with this one as there always is with
;; Clojure code. Let's see how it gets called first:
;; (get-deepest-values (get-in rhyme-to-word (take 3
;; (word-to-rhyme "connection"))))
;; Which could probably be a function of its own called (rhyme).
;; Although I've noticed Jack doesn't really care much whether
;; something is a function or a variable, it's like it DOESN'T EVEN
;; MATTER. Hmm.
;; Anyway, we're going to give this function, (word-to-rhyme) a word
;; and get something back.
;; (word-to-rhyme "connection")
;; and we get
;; [:N :AH :SH :K :EH :N :AH :K]
;; which is the reverse order of phonemes. Which makes sense, we're
;; building a rhyming dictionary, gonna go end to beginning in terms
;; of phonemes.
;; Going to add a crazy amount of indenting here so I can see the
;; levels more clearly as a n00b.
(def word-to-rhyme
(reduce (fn [m [word & rhyme]]
(assoc m
(string/lower-case word)
(string/replace %1 #"[0-9]" ""))
(reverse rhyme))))
{} rhyme-txt))
;; This is a funny one because as I mess with the parens my java
;; keeps running out of heap space. So it's clearly doing a lot,
;; like loading the whole CMU dictionary into memory. This is
;; something that seems to happen when you mix in-buffer evaluation
;; with lazy evaluation--occasionally you'll just blow up your
;; session because you put something in the wrong place and called
;; it a billion times instead of 100.
;; The super hot LISPY action in there is
;; (reduce function=[that function] val=[an empty map {}]
;; coll=[rhyme-txt, our list of vectors])
;; Clojure docs are kind of a bear. For reduce, they say "If val is
;; supplied, returns the result of applying f to val and the first
;; item in coll, then applying f to that result and the 2nd item,
;; etc." Awesome. Although I will say that they are always accurate
;; and if you read them ten or twenty times they start to make
;; sense. (Plus the community is completely tutorial-mad, there's no
;; shortage of ways to learn this language, although in my case
;; having an old-school Comp Sci guy as a friend helps.)
;; So what reduce does here is return the results applying that
;; function in there to {} and the first item in the rhyme-text,
;; then applies that to the second item, etc.
;; In
;; [m [word & rhyme]]
;; it's going to be applied with values like:
;; That's interesting because we have the [word & rhyme]--the way
;; that destructuring works, rhyme will catch all of the phonemes
;; into a list; it's almost like the CMU people could predict this
;; kind of programming would occur using their dictionary. Or that
;; Clojure was designed to deal with data structures like those in
;; the CMU dictionary. Or that programmers should be creating data
;; structures like those in the CMU dictionary that are easy to
;; comprehend and manipulate as lists. Who knows?
;; Then we say:
;; (assoc map key val)
;; Or here:
;; (assoc {} "connection" ...)
;; And then a couple things happen on the way to passing THAT
;; parameter.
;; FIRST we reverse the rhyme (reverse rhyme) so
;; K AH0 N EH1 K SH AH0 N
;; becomes
;; AH0 SH K EH1 N AH0 K
;; SECOND we replace all the numbers with nothing (likely because we
;; just don't need the data, can't remember why CMU uses numbers)
;; we do that with a regular expression yielding
;; THIRD we run a mapv across that list of phonemes--that is, apply
;; to each element and return a vector. And what we are applying is
;; the "keyword" function which turns a string to a clojure keyword so
;; we end up with a structure like:
;; {"connection" [:N :AH :SH :K :EH :N :AH :K]}
;; NOTE: I'm not sure WHY we're converting to keywords but they are
;; prettier in general and make for better keywords in maps, and I'm
;; assuming they actually are optimized as, like, keywords, so....
;; Anyway, and then we repeat that (lazily, I guess, so in chunks of
;; 32 or whatever it is that Clojure does?) as needed until we've
;; slurped up the whole file into a big map or what I still think of
;; as an associative array. Aaaand now we have a variable that
;; defines a function that when given--
;; Oh god, I SEE. I ACTUALLY SEE. This is a def instead of a
;; function for a reason. It's a var that calls a function which
;; returns a map, but in Clojure a map can operate as a function. So
;; when I say:
;; (word-to-rhyme "connection")
;; I'm causing the interpreter to read the entirety of the
;; dictionary into a map, and assigning that map to "word-to-rhyme"
;; and then because I'm calling word-to-rhyme as the first item in a
;; sexp, the interpreter evaluates it as a function and returns the
;; phonemes that it has assoc'd to that word.
;; Clojure is kind of dense.
;; So I'm going to assume we're in similar territory here with this
;; variable def.
(def rhyme-to-word
(fn [m [word rhyme]]
(assoc-in m rhyme { :terminate word }))
;; Aand we are, KIND OF. Hmm. So in this case we take the map (now
;; just a map) from word-to-rhyme and do another reduce, except the
;; structure we're building up is going to be a trie (?) so we're
;; going:
;; (assoc-in {} [:N :AH :SH :K :EH :N :AH :K] { :terminate
;; "connection" })
;; And as a result we're getting:
;; {:N {:AH {:SH {:K {:EH {:N {:AH {:K {:terminate
;; "connection"}}}}}}}}}
;; Great but that's one word. NOW Clojure hands that same map back
;; to the reduce with ANOTHER word, and so on for thousands of
;; words, building up a huge nested behemoth of a data structure.
;; So we've passed assoc-in the phonemes for "connection"; we can
;; now pass it "correction" and they should be all jammed up in a
;; really nice way...
;; (assoc-in (assoc-in {} [:N :AH :SH :K :EH :N :AH :K] {
;; :terminate "connection" }) [:N :AH :SH :K :EH :ER :K]
;; {:terminate "correction"})
;; Okay, yes we end up with something that will let us take one
;; word, look up the phonemes (in reverse order) and look for
;; similar phonemes, then map those back to the words. That's what
;; we have here, no doubt. Looks like this:
;; {:N {:AH {:SH {:K {:EH {:ER {:K {:terminate "correction"}}, :N
;; {:AH {:K {:terminate "connection"}}}}}}}}}
;; And since I can assoc-in I can get-in too and pull stuff out.
;; Okay so on we go...
(defn get-deepest-values [k]
(if (string? k) [k] (mapcat get-deepest-values (vals k))))
;; What the hell is this? What is it for? OH GOD.
;; So here we're looking for strings inside a nest of keywords--that
;; makes sense. What is mapcat? Clojure docs:
;; "Returns the result of applying concat to the result of
;; applying map to f and colls. Thus function f should return a
;; collection."
;; Great, thanks Clojure docs. You're my bosom robot pal.
;; What it means I think is that you're going to give this function
;; a bundle of stuff and it'll do something to each piece of stuff
;; (MAP!...) and then smush everything together into one nice list
;; (...!CAT). So we're saying given a nested associated structure
;; like the one we just made, pull out all the values ...
;; Wait hold on--let's look at how it's actually called.
;; Okay this is the big mooooment
(get-in rhyme-to-word
(take 5
(word-to-rhyme "erection"))))
;; (Erection, eh Jack?)
;; And this gives a result thus:
;; ("erection" "direction" "correction" "collection" "inflection"
;; "preelection" "circumspection" "introspection" "imperfection"
;; "perfection" "midsection" "transection" "connection"
;; "protection")
;; But sometimes it's all too last-first for me, so let's do that
;; using this guy "->>"--which is a macro that allows you to put
;; things in normal human-person order instead of LISPbot order,
;; passing the results of the first function call as the last
;; parameter to the next function and on and on.
(word-to-rhyme "erection")
;; gives us [:N :AH :SH :K :EH :R :IH]
(take 5)
;; gives us (:N :AH :SH :K :EH)--i.e. five phonemes, or the "ection" part of the rhyme.
(get-in rhyme-to-word)
;; so we're calling (get-in rhyme-to-word '(:N :AH :SH :K :EH))
;; and we get this result:
;; {:R {:IH {:terminate "erection"}}, :ER {:D {:terminate
;; "direction"}, :K {:terminate "correction"}}, :L {:AH {:K
;; {:terminate "collection"}}, :F {:N {:IH {:terminate
;; "inflection"}}}, :IH {:IY {:R {:P {:terminate
;; "preelection"}}}}}, :P {:S {:M {:AH {:K {:ER {:S {:terminate
;; "circumspection"}}}}}, :AH {:R {:T {:N {:IH {:terminate
;; "introspection"}}}}}}}, :F {:ER {:P {:M {:IH {:terminate
;; "imperfection"}}, :terminate "perfection"}}}, :S {:D {:IH
;; {:M {:terminate "midsection"}}}, :N {:AE {:R {:T {:terminate
;; "transection"}}}}}, :N {:AH {:K {:terminate "connection"}}},
;; :T {:AH {:R {:P {:terminate "protection"}}}}}
;; Okay so THAT's what we're passing in when we call....
;; So it turns out that all that
;; (defn get-deepest-values [k]
;; (if (string? k) [k] (mapcat get-deepest-values (vals k))))
;; does is say: Hey pal, get the values from the key/value pairs
;; that are in a map called "k." If you hit any value at all that is
;; a string, return it and you're done for that part. OTHERWISE keep
;; mapping over the values and run this function again on each one
;; of them (until you hit a string). And however nested things are
;; is fine and all, but please return a nice flat list of results
;; (that's why it's mapcat instead of cat").
;; So it's like you gave it a Russian nested doll, except this is
;; LISP so it's a Siamese Russian nested doll where the number of
;; conjoined twins varies from nil to infinity. And it keeps looking
;; inside the first twin's dolls until it finds a piece of paper
;; with a word or two on it. Then it throws away all the dolls
;; around those words. And it does the same to the other twin. Maybe
;; the first twin is three dolls deep. Maybe the second twin is four
;; dolls deep. Doesn't even matter. Get-deepest-values just digs
;; right in there.
;; Of all of them, these tiny recursive functions are the hardest to
;; write and understand.
;; Anyway, that's how it works, I think.
;; ** Part II
;; Okay so we have a nice rhyming dictionary. But Jack insists on
;; complicating things and drops in this fun-fest.
(def byron-bigrams [["soul" "wears"] ["light" "of"] ["moon" "be"]
["outwears" "its"] ["the" "soul"]
["night" "though"] ["heart" "must"]
["out" "the"] ["be" "still"] ["love" "itself"]
["the" "light"] ["pause" "to"] ["yet" "we"]
["for" "loving"] ["day" "returns"]
["the" "night"] ["too" "soon"] ["for" "the"]
["a" "roving"] ["will" "go"] ["loving" "and"]
["sword" "outwears"] ["to" "breathe"]
["breast" "and"] ["still" "as"] ["so" "late"]
["the" "day"] ["was" "made"] ["the" "sword"]
["more" "a"] ["soon" "yet"] ["must" "pause"]
["roving" "by"] ["the" "moon"]
["returns" "too"] ["itself" "have"]
["night" "was"] ["into" "the"] ["we" "will"]
["breathe" "and"] ["sheath" "and"] ["so" "we"]
["roving" "so"] ["no" "more"] ["made" "for"]
["the" "heart"] ["though" "the"] ["go" "no"]
["late" "into"] ["wears" "out"] ["and" "the"]
["of" "the"] ["by" "the"] ["and" "love"]
["the" "breast"] ["heart" "be"] ["as" "loving"]
["its" "sheath"]])
(group-by (comp (partial take 2) word-to-rhyme last) byron-bigrams)
;; It's a PUZZLER. I just want to be done now, friends. I just want
;; to not be recursing. But let's chill and take it bit by bit. The
;; dude has 30 years of reasons for writing code this way.
;; First, the data above is a set of bigrams (subsequent word pairs)
;; from Lord Byron's "We'll go no more a-roving."
;; I was able to figure that out by the fact that the variable is
;; named "byron" plus "bigrams" and included the word "roving." This
;; part at least makes sense, thanks to Google.
;; So let's put that into a var.
(def roving-poem "SO, we'll go no more a-roving
So late into the night,
Though the heart be still as loving,
And the moon be still as bright.
For the sword outwears its sheath,
And the soul wears out the breast,
And the heart must pause to breathe,
And love itself have rest.
Though the night was made for loving,
And the day returns too soon,
Yet we'll go no more a-roving
By the light of the moon.")
;; Now Jack already has his bigrams in here. But I want to make my
;; own damned bigrams. I tried a few different ways of making
;; bigrams, here's one approach, with ten failures left out but a
;; few failures left in.
;; Let's break up roving-poem into lowercase words using a regular
;; expression and the lower-case function.
(def some-words
(map string/lower-case
(string/split roving-poem #"[\s\.\-,]+")))
;; (take 10 some-words)
;; => ("so" "we'll" "go" "no" "more" "a" "roving" "so" "late"
;; "into")
;;I'm really excited to have a function called "bigrammer" so let's
;; go all the way and call it big-rammer. I started like this:
(defn big-rammer0 [words]
(if (< (count words) 2)
(vec (first words) (second words)
(big-rammer0 rest words))))
;; But when I went
;; (big-rammer0 some-words)
;; It returns nil, which suuuucks. Nil is the opposite of what I
;; want (not really, nil is not the opposite of things, nil is a
;; mysterious nothing.) Then I realized that the (if ...) is
;; probably in the wrong place, which always happens and got to:
(defn big-rammer1 [words]
(list (first words) (second words)
(if (> (count words) 2)
(big-rammer1 (rest words)))))
(big-rammer1 some-words)
;; And that returned
;; ("so" "we'll" ("we'll" "go" ("go" "no" ...[snipped a bunch]
;; nil)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
;; )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
;; Which is just way too many parentheses, even for Clojure.
;; Now I know there is stuff like (flatten) and (filter identity)
;; that would get me a flat list without the nil on the end. Nils
;; are kind of the bane of my existence in Clojure, they keep
;; showing up and I never know what to do with them. But that's not
;; what I want; I want to get every two items and put them together
;; just so without a whole lot of shenanigans to flatten the
;; list. This has to be possible.
;; Let's just try the recursive model a little bit more.
;; Okay, I got it, maybe.
;; Here's how I'd describe the following function in english: Given
;; a buncha words ("cat" "dog" "ferret" "weasel"), do two things:
;; make a list with all but the first of those words ("dog" "ferret"
;; "weasel") and also a tiny list with the first and second word
;; ("cat "dog"). Then go ahead and call the EXACT SAME function on
;; the first list with all but the first of the words---and KEEP
;; calling that bad boy until it's down to two items. Then call it
;; quits (which will return nil because there's nothing to
;; return). Every time you made that call you make those tiny lists
;; with two items, right? Well once you've exhausted the longer list
;; you take all of them and conj[oin] them into one list of lists.
;; Actually this part of LISP drives me crazy, I never quite GET IT,
;; so let's break it down in exhaustive detail.
(defn big-rammer2 [words]
(if (> (count words) 1)
(vec (conj (big-rammer2 (rest words))
(vec (list (first words) (second words)))))))
(big-rammer2 '("cat" "dog" "ferret" "weasel"))
;; This produces
;; [["ferret" "weasel"] ["dog" "ferret"] ["cat" "dog"]]
;; Which is what we want. And man does it look LISPy, especially the
;; part where it goes ")))))))"
;; (big-rammer2 some-words)
;; gives us a nice vector too, because
;; we wrapped our lists in (vec). So now things are starting to look
;; like byron-bigrams up top. We're getting somewhere.
;; Okay let's run it piece by piece, interpolating the growing list
;; of vectors.
(big-rammer2 '("cat" "dog" "ferret" "weasel"))
;; PASS 1
(vec (conj
'("dog" "ferret" "weasel"))
["cat" "dog"]))
;; Result: [["cat" "dog"] ["dog" "ferret"] ["ferret" "weasel"]]
;; PASS 2
(vec (conj
'("ferret" "weasel"))
["dog" "ferret"] ["cat" "dog"]))
;; Result: [["cat" "dog"] ["dog" "ferret"] ["ferret" "weasel"]]
;; PASS 3
(vec (conj
["ferret" "weasel"] ["dog" "ferret"] ["cat" "dog"]))
;; Result: [["cat" "dog"] ["dog" "ferret"] ["ferret" "weasel"]]
;; PASS 4
(vec (conj nil ["ferret" "weasel"] ["dog" "ferret"] ["cat" "dog"]))
;; Result: [["cat" "dog"] ["dog" "ferret"] ["ferret" "weasel"]]
;; The interesting thing is that if you DON'T have that nil it goes
;; pear-shaped. So if I run:
(vec (conj ["ferret" "weasel"] ["dog" "ferret"] ["cat" "dog"]))
;; I get:
;; ["ferret" "weasel" ["dog" "ferret"] ["cat" "dog"]]
;; Tooo nested. Now, what the hell, let's go a little deeper on
;; conj. Because conjoining does all manner of stuff.
;; "conj[oin]. Returns a new collection with the xs
;; 'added'. (conj nil item) returns (item). The 'addition' may
;; happen at different 'places' depending on the concrete type."
;; ARGH. It's like biting into a brick. So what are we really doing?
;; Let's break this down:
(conj [:foo] [:bar])
;; Makes
;; [:foo [:bar]]
;; Whereas
(conj nil [:foo] [:bar])
;; Makes
;; ([:bar] [:foo])
;; Because it is CONJOINING bar /into/ foo. Whereas the docs, with
;; their inimitable clarity, say:
;; "(conj nil item) returns (item)"
;; So in theory...
(= (list ["a"] ["b"]) (conj nil ["b"] ["a"]))
;; And indeed that IS true. Because conjing ["b"] onto nil produces
;; (["b"]), and then conjing ["a"] onto that puts it into the list
;; that contains ["b"].
;; So this is a BIG DISCOVERY for me. You process items and throw
;; them at the end of a recursive function and then conjoin them
;; when it's all done. Now the nil value produced when the function
;; is called for the last time becomes the FIRST item that conjoin
;; sees--and so conjoin goes ahead and puts everything that follows
;; WERE SOME SORT OF INSANE SICKLY GOAL. Which sure, I get that, I'm
;; programming in a LISP, but it is weird when you see it up
;; close. Like when you see your screen is made of pixels.
;; I.e. the thing I'm trying to get to/comprehend is that in Clojure
;; it's not just that there are a lot of lists (seqs); it's that
;; lists inform every aspect of the language and if you don't see a
;; list, or some relationship that can be expressed as a set of
;; lists, you should keep looking. If you don't see/feel a sequence,
;; you're not looking hard enough. And this kind of makes sense
;; because computers at their essence just put stuff in boxes and
;; take stuff out of boxes in predetermined sequences. So this is a
;; funny thing about LISP because it's a suuuuuper-crazy abstraction
;; and maps to lambda calculus, but it's simultaneously weirdly
;; close to the metal, which is why it must appeal to a certain kind
;; of nerd. I find this really comforting but I can see why other
;; people would not. I think this is what Jack is trying to tell me!
;; (It is; I actually checked with him to be sure.)
;; Anyway all of this is moot because I also went and searched for a
;; bigram-maker and found one in incanter, which is a general
;; purpose math/stats library for Clojure.
;; And what that makes clear is that we can use the partition
;; function--here called as (partition 2 1) which goes ahead and
;; takes a list of two things, fast-forwards by one thing, takes the
;; next two things, fast forwards by one thing, etc. So partition is
;; a built-in that does what our recursive function does above but I
;; REGRET NOTHING. So we can get all of our words at once by going:
(def words
(map #(vec %) (partition 2 1
(map string/lower-case
(string/split roving-poem #"[\s\.\-,]+")))))
;; I.e. partition into bigrams and and then map those into vectors
;; (#() is shorthand for defining a function with an argument "%")
;; and you'll end up with a structure basically like the one Jack
;; has in his original (there are a few tiny differences; his
;; doesn't preserve apostrophes, but we're close enough now.) So I
;; feel okay about that. I get how to make bigrams both via map and
;; via a recursive funtion. Now let's get to the end....
(group-by (comp (partial take 2) word-to-rhyme last) byron-bigrams)
;; Okay we're almost home.
;; "(comp...)" means we're going to make a function out of other
;; functions.
;; "(partial...)" means we're making a function with partial
;; arguments that can be called and evaluated with just the
;; "missing" arguments provided.
;; So...
;; (= ((partial take 2) '(1 2 3 4))
;; '(1 2))
;; => true
;; That works fine but is of course most handy when you go:
;; (=
;; (map (partial take 2) [[1 2 3] [4 5 6] [7 8 9]])
;; '((1 2) (4 5) (7 8)))
;; => true
;; This jibes with everything I've learned about LISP, which is that
;; LISP is about lots of tiny functions that can all live together
;; in beautiful harmony, except on Usenet.
;; Anyway if we execute the above with just the (first) of the
;; byron-bigrams...
;; ((comp (partial take 2) word-to-rhyme last) (first
;; byron-bigrams))
;; => (:Z :R)
;; That is the same as:
;; (take 2 (word-to-rhyme (last (first byron-bigrams))))
;; => (:Z :R)
;; And so
;; (= ((comp (partial take 2) word-to-rhyme last)
;; (first byron-bigrams))
;; (take 2 (word-to-rhyme (last (first byron-bigrams)))))
;; There's a lot of chitchat about functional composition out there in
;; LISPLand but all we're REALLY saying is "smush together all of
;; these functions so that they can be run over and over with data
;; of the sort that you'll find in byron-bigrams." Like, the
;; composition part should be easy--and here it is--the hard part is
;; in making composable functions.
;; Anyway, group-by is pretty familiar; just about every language
;; has it. It runs a function over a list and the result is the key
;; in a map, and the value that produced that key is added to a
;; vector on the right hand side. (PASS THE VECTOR TO THE RIGHT HAND
;; run this we're going to get a map of all the bigrams where the
;; last two phonemes of the last word are exactly identical. Thus
;; we'll get all the bigrams that rhyme, at least in terms of two
;; phonemes meaning a "rhyme."
(group-by (comp (partial take 2) word-to-rhyme last) byron-bigrams)
;; And we do! Here's what comes out:
;; {(:L :IH) [["be" "still"] ["we" "will"]], () [["sword"
;; "outwears"]], (:N :UW) [["too" "soon"] ["the" "moon"]], (:NG
;; :IH) [["for" "loving"] ["a" "roving"] ["as" "loving"]], (:OW
;; :S) [["roving" "so"]], (:OW :DH) [["night" "though"]], (:IY
;; :W) [["yet" "we"] ["so" "we"]], (:T :S) [["heart" "must"]
;; ["the" "breast"]], (:D :EY) [["was" "made"]], (:T :AY) [["the"
;; "light"] ["the" "night"]], (:T :R) [["the" "heart"]], (:OW :N)
;; [["go" "no"]], (:T :EH) [["soon" "yet"]], (:EY) [["more"
;; "a"]], (:Z :R) [["soul" "wears"]], (:R :AO) [["no" "more"]
;; ["made" "for"]], (:Z :AA) [["night" "was"]], (:AY :B)
;; [["roving" "by"]], (:V :AH) [["light" "of"] ["and" "love"]],
;; (:Z :N) [["day" "returns"]], (:V :AE) [["itself" "have"]], (:D
;; :R) [["the" "sword"]], (:Z :AE) [["still" "as"]], (:OW :G)
;; [["will" "go"]], (:TH :IY) [["its" "sheath"]], (:F :L)
;; [["love" "itself"]], (:D :N) [["loving" "and"] ["breast"
;; "and"] ["breathe" "and"] ["sheath" "and"]], (:Z :AO) [["must"
;; "pause"]], (:T :AW) [["wears" "out"]], (:IY :B) [["moon" "be"]
;; ["heart" "be"]], (:DH :IY) [["to" "breathe"]], (:UW :T)
;; [["pause" "to"] ["returns" "too"] ["late" "into"]], (:T :EY)
;; [["so" "late"]], (:AH :DH) [["out" "the"] ["for" "the"]
;; ["into" "the"] ["though" "the"] ["and" "the"] ["of" "the"]
;; ["by" "the"]], (:L :OW) [["the" "soul"]], (:S :T) [["outwears"
;; "its"]], (:EY :D) [["the" "day"]]}
;; So there we are. Jack points out something important via chat
;; discussion on Google Jabberchat, which I'm adding here.
;; Jack: The lesson the group-by is that if you parameterize your
;; grouping function with another function you only need to write
;; group-by once, rather than having a group-by for each of your
;; data types.
;; Jack: The sub lessons are that composition and partial evaluation
;; let you improvise the function you use to do that
;; parameterization with basically no ceremony.
;; Jack: Last thing on parameterizing functions with functions:
;; that’s also how the calculus works
;; ...that's also how the calculus works...
;; I mean come on. That's fun. No one says that about Ruby. They're
;; all like "it compiles SASS now!"
;; So basically we're done (but don't worry I've added a giant essay
;; to this because what is wrong with me.) Here are some possible
;; next steps:
;; 1) Care about syllables
;; 2) Look for words that are phonetic opposites of one another.
;; 3) Wrap a web service around it.
;; 4) Relax.
;; Here are some notes and observations from this exercise.
;; ----------------------------------------
;; The Alan Perlis maxim about having 100 functions operate on one
;; data structure keeps coming back to my head over and over. It's
;; like that quote is the data structure and my brain keeps
;; operating on it in 100 different ways.
;; ----------------------------------------
;; If things need to get processed, just do it inside the
;; function. Don't make tons of little functions like, say,
;; "filter-to-lowercase" or the like, as I would in Python hanging
;; off the class; just do it right there in the function. At some
;; level this fits well with my overall life/programming/editorial/
;; writing strategy of "keep like with like," which is the one true
;; principle of just about everything, but it requires a lot of
;; familiarity and comfort with the programming model--especially
;; the right-to-left depth-first model of LISPs--to really be
;; proficient in this kind of coding, to know where to break things
;; off into multiple functions.
;; ----------------------------------------
;; Things WANT to be lists, and Clojure wants them to be
;; lists. Destructuring is not about dealing with arbitrary numbers
;; of arguments. It's about pulling out a few named arguments, then
;; throwing the rest into a sequence, so that you can quickly take
;; something dumb--a list of strings representing words and
;; phonemes--and make that list a little smarter. And repeat. Add
;; smarts, process the rest, add smarts, process the rest. The ethos
;; seems to be: Take dumb stuff, add smarts, repeat.
;; ----------------------------------------
;; Getting things into the right data type really helps to simplify
;; your life. If you take the phonemes and make them keywords, going
;; from "EK" to :EK, then you can pull results out of a nested trie
;; structure and recursively look through it for the strings, which
;; are your payload, and ignore the keywords. My regular pattern is
;; to create really big associative arrays from any data source--to
;; reinvent XML or JSON in-memory, basically, with lots of nested
;; arrays and so forth; the idea here seems to be that the best
;; possible data structure is a nice plain list without a lot of
;; fooling around and it's okay to assume the code knows about the
;; data once they meet up; the data doesn't have to tell the code
;; what every field means. Again--my roots are document processing,
;; where that's actually a good thing. We take more for granted on
;; planet Clojure.
;; ----------------------------------------
;; You know, there's a strong, strong urge to never actually finish
;; anything when I'm in Clojure. This is because the "finished"
;; state is less relevant when you're evaluating code live inside a
;; text editor and looking at (and then parsing) the results back
;; into the same live coding environment. The whole idea of
;; "finished" seems kind of hilarious, like you are some sort of God
;; looking down on humans who are still maintaining state in
;; variables and sort of squinting and sighing, and since nothing is
;; ever REALLY done, why pretend otherwise?
;; I'm not using a REPL. I'm just evaluating, evaluating, evaluating
;; all day long. It's very easy to get separatist about this
;; environment. Meanwhile everyone else has shipped their websites
;; and gone out for dinner to celebrate their acquihiresition while
;; I'm sitting home at 2AM trying to understand the spiritual
;; essence of "conj."
;; EXCEPT I know in my little heart that I'm a better programmer
;; after two or three weeks of dabbling in Clojure. But I don't have
;; a TON to show, and not as much as I'd have with Python, for
;; certain. And I do have a product to ship. That said, huge amount
;; of opaque code (especially Emacs LISP) is far more open to me
;; than it used to be, and readable. And I've had an awful lot of
;; "oh wow actually that's very easy if you just use (partition)"
;; moments reading the standard library code. Lots of bits of
;; programmer culture--Jamie Zawinski rants, "Worse is Better,"
;; Haskell passion--make more sense.
;; So this is probably a net win. What Clojure is teaching me is to
;; calm down, look at the function signature in my Emacs modeline,
;; check the standard docs (control-C d), and then write a function
;; and rewrite it until it doesn't explode and does what I want. And
;; you just sort of keep on doing it. And if it comes together
;; (maybe the partial Wikipedia parser I'm writing could be useful)
;; you bundle it up and release it to Github.
;; Stuff like that recursive big-rammer2 function used to be really
;; hard for me to wrap my head around, and it's not any more--the
;; magic has gone out of it. It's nice to see magic destroyed. One
;; thing about magic is that when it gets bundled up
;; but is still hidden from view (i.e. in frameworks) it leads to
;; sameness of product. Every wizard has the same spells.
;; When you look at what people are doing so far, there doesn't seem
;; to be a prototypical Clojure app out in the world. People seem to
;; be focused on the language, and on gluing together things from other
;; languages so they can be used here. It'll be
;; interesting to see what emerges. There are some web frameworks, but
;; some minimal web app layers like Ring that make more sense to me right
;; now. Frameworks are great but they sure do lead to a
;; lot of apps that look and feel and...taste? alike. I'm not saying
;; things should be hard--I'm just saying that we create things with
;; our tools, and thus our tools have consequences.
Copy link

eelzon commented Jan 27, 2014

How would you say that your experience as the father of twins has changed your understanding and interpretation of this code?

Copy link

ftrain commented Jan 27, 2014

it has made me more willing to think very hard about repetitive actions made up of many tiny subtasks

Copy link

djacobs commented Jan 27, 2014

@nzle @ftrain I love you both.

Copy link

djacobs commented Jan 27, 2014

@eelzon you too.

Copy link

I would like to favorite Nozlee's comment.

Copy link

I did finish reading it, dear. And yes, I am sleepy.
Questions: what is heap space? And I will make you explain AutoCAD being lisp-y at dinner table tomorrow night.

Copy link

Awesomely written.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment