You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is following up on the post-talk discussion at RacketCon 2020...I like the idea of Leibniz and think it can solve an important problem in clearly/accurately communicating the details of scientific computation. But I am having trouble making the leap from the currently available examples to more complex examples that make it easier to understand/visualize how Leibniz could be used (e.g., in a publication). I wonder if an example of a "classic" algorithm (such as the Barnes & Hut treecode for N-body simulations) might help bridge this gap?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for the suggestion. Barnes & Hut looks like a nice example indeed. In the current state of Leibniz, it would probably be unwelcomingly long, because it would have to start with definitions of "collection of particles" plus all its operations (adding, removing, merging, iterating, ...). That's one of the most urgent extensions from my point of view: basic collections should be built-in. If/when that is done, Barnes & Hut should become quite straightforward.
This is following up on the post-talk discussion at RacketCon 2020...I like the idea of Leibniz and think it can solve an important problem in clearly/accurately communicating the details of scientific computation. But I am having trouble making the leap from the currently available examples to more complex examples that make it easier to understand/visualize how Leibniz could be used (e.g., in a publication). I wonder if an example of a "classic" algorithm (such as the Barnes & Hut treecode for N-body simulations) might help bridge this gap?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: