Maybe it's enlightening to see a functional take on that as well.
If you think a bit about this, producing all members of a powerset basically comes down to go over all elements of the input-set.

For every such you have the choice of including it in a subset or not (so you can directly see that there will be 2^{n} subsets for a set of size n)

This idea directly translates into this (yeah sorry it's Haskell):

if you've got the empty set (really a list here but hey FP right?) the only subset of this is the empty-subset itself

or else you have a set with at least one element x (and possible more elements xs)

now you have two classes ob subsets: one where x is included, and one where it is not

you get both by recursively getting all the subsets of the remaining elements xs - just include x everywhere in one copy (that's the map (x:) part - ++ just concatenates the two sets ob subsets

call me weird but I consider that easier to read and reason about than the imperative Java solution ;)

This is what I like about declarative and functional code :)

It's pure :)

I have to add that I have a place also for imperative code, what I do like about imperative code is that instead of repeating the definition (which is not a bad thing it's beautiful), I'm actually taking the mini steps and it makes me understand what's happening better. (that's at least how I understand things).

In addition, let's say I to log something out to the logger, I'm not sure what would happen to the functional code, or I would need to send some metrics to monitoring, I'm sure there is a functional solution to it (monad and friends) but this is where things get's heavy on me.

depends on what you want to log I guess (seems doubtful, that you want to log anything here - indeed I never had the need to log anything inside a pure function as you can test it anytime if you know the input to it)

but sure most of us learned programming in the more operational/imperative mindset (basically by doing step-by-step debugging in our head) so it might take some time to get "warm" with FP ;)

But in those more mathematical problems (where the problem often is recursive in nature) it's just a natural fit ;)

I remember this firmly as one of the more difficult exercises in my introductory programming course at university. But finding that solution was so rewarding!

## re: Build a PowerSet VIEW POST

FULL DISCUSSIONMaybe it's enlightening to see a functional take on that as well.

If you think a bit about this, producing all members of a powerset basically comes down to go over all elements of the input-set.

For every such you have the choice of including it in a subset or not (so you can directly see that there will be 2

^{n}subsets for a set of size n)This idea directly translates into this (yeah sorry it's Haskell):

meaning:

if you've got the empty set (really a list here but hey FP right?) the only subset of this is the empty-subset itself

or else you have a set with at least one element

`x`

(and possible more elements`xs`

)`x`

is included, and one where it is not`xs`

- just include`x`

everywhere in one copy (that's the`map (x:)`

part -`++`

just concatenates the two sets ob subsetscall me weird but I consider that easier to read and reason about than the imperative Java solution ;)

This is definitely beautiful! :)

This is what I like about declarative and functional code :)

It's pure :)

I have to add that I have a place also for imperative code, what I do like about imperative code is that instead of repeating the definition (which is not a bad thing it's beautiful), I'm actually taking the mini steps and it makes me understand what's happening better. (that's at least how I understand things).

In addition, let's say I to log something out to the logger, I'm not sure what would happen to the functional code, or I would need to send some metrics to monitoring, I'm sure there is a functional solution to it (monad and friends) but this is where things get's heavy on me.

depends on what you want to log I guess (seems doubtful, that you want to log anything here - indeed I never had the need to log anything inside a pure function as you can test it anytime if you know the input to it)

but sure most of us learned programming in the more operational/imperative mindset (basically by doing step-by-step debugging in our head) so it might take some time to get "warm" with FP ;)

But in those more mathematical problems (where the problem often is recursive in nature) it's just a natural fit ;)

cool, adding the scala functional :: recursive :: declarative :: concise way to the post :)) .

I remember this firmly as one of the more difficult exercises in my introductory programming course at university. But finding that solution was so rewarding!