14 ms·
God writes Haskell
- justincredible 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kevinlu1248 3y agoThis makes me believe simulation theory even more tbh. Quantum mechanics exist to fuse operations, altogether making simulating our universe more computationally inexpensive.
- lessaligned 3y agoThere's an even deeper way to thing about it: if you actually want to parallellize the simulation of multiple scenarios, or if you're running smth. that needs to compute smth in >4d, quantum mechanics + parallel universes" might be the computationally optimal way to do it! ...we don't think about it this way often because we'd be thinking about computational problems so huuuuge that we'd be like the quarks inside the atoms inside the transistors inside plannet-sized clusters spanning galaxies to even fathom computing it ...and it's not necesarily a feel-good perspective :) I mean, even the speed-of-light limit and general relativity seem like optimizations you'd do in order to better parallelize something you need to compute on some unfathomable "hardware" in some baseline-reality that might not have the same constraints... ...and to finish the coffee-high-rant: if you want FTL you probably can't get it "inside" because it would break the simulation, you'd need to "get out" ...or more like "get plucked out" by some-thing/god :P (ergo, when we see alien artifacts UFOs etc. that seemed to have done FTL... we kind of need to start assuming MORE than _their_ existence and just them being 'more advanced' than us)
- odyssey7 3y agoThere’s something about this that swallows its own tail, the optimal way to simulate a universe using computing theory available in that universe.
- eigenket 3y agoPeople write this sort of thing a lot, and I don't really understand it. Simulating quantum systems is dramatically (formally speaking exponentially) more expensive than simulating classical ones (at least as far as our current understanding of complexity theory goes). If you're going to simulate a universe, and you want to cheap-out on computer power, then you should simulate a classical one.
- timcavel 3y ago[dead]
- valyagolev 3y agoor maybe God is intuitionist btw reminded me of the "quantum-mechanical" monad http://blog.sigfpe.com/2007/03/monads-vector-spaces-and-quantum.html http://blog.sigfpe.com/2007/03/monads-vector-spaces-and-quan...
- charcircuit 3y ago>He seems to enjoy writing Haskell This article gives no evidence of this. None of the concepts that the article lists out are Haskell exclusive. Thunks and linked list can be made in C too.
- adrian_b 3y agoIn any programming language where functions are allowed as arguments to functions, and most languages that are still in use allow this, you can choose lazy evaluation for any function argument. Already Algol 60 had "call-by-name", which could be used to do lazy evaluation. The only difference in Haskell and similar languages is that lazy evaluation is the default mode of evaluation, and if you do not want this it is more difficult to make another choice. While there is no doubt that there are certain cases when lazy evaluation is desirable, I have never seen any evidence that lazy evaluation by default is better instead of worse. Despite lower efficiency, lazy evaluation by default may have a psychological advantage for programmers who find it easier to understand programs with lazy evaluation than programs with immediate evaluation, but neither I am one of those nor have I ever met one of those.
- mrkeen 3y ago> I have never seen any evidence that lazy evaluation by default is better instead of worse With lazy-by-default: if you want strictness, you can simply 'evaluate something now'. With strict-by-default: if you want laziness, you have to rewrite your code, and all the libraries that your code calls. > psychological advantage for programmers who find it easier to understand programs with lazy evaluation This is entirely based what you're used to. If you can be OK with executing either the true-branch or the false-branch of an if-statement (but not both), you can be OK with lazy evaluation. Same with boolean short circuiting. Why should true || error() return true, but any [true, error(), error()] return error?
- adrian_b 3y ago> "If you can be OK with executing either the true-branch or the false-branch of an if-statement (but not both), you can be OK with lazy evaluation. Same with boolean short circuiting." Understanding lazy evaluation that occurs here and there in a program is not a problem for anyone. Understanding the behavior of a program where all function arguments are evaluated lazily is something extremely different and it is notorious that even the experienced Haskell programmers frequently fail to predict correctly the requirements in time and memory of a program. > With strict-by-default: if you want laziness, you have to rewrite your code I agree that this is true, but in decades of programming experience I have never encountered such a case. Discovering that you want lazy evaluation after you have already written a program means that the initial concept of the program had very serious flaws and you have started coding before thinking properly what you have to do. Sometimes it happens that it is discovered that a program needs a rewrite because the problem that it must solve had not been understood, but in almost all cases such rewrites are needed for completely other causes than the need of some lazy evaluations. So this argument in favor of lazy evaluation brings an advantage in some very rare cases, like also the argument that lazy evaluation by default sometimes saves work because eventually it may be discovered that the evaluation is not necessary, but this is also a relatively rare event, which must be balanced with much extra work that must be done by the CPU at each function invocation (which is a very frequent event), in order to implement lazy evaluation by default.
- nice_byte 3y agoforget grasping at straws, this is grasping at bose-einstein condensate :)
- nurettin 3y agoThis kind of thinking happens when you are a strong expert in a field, but your frontal lobes stop receiving enough blood. When this happens, something simple as lazy evaluation becomes the key to the universe.
- lessaligned 3y ago...it's useful to (over)generalize sometimes to get more explanatory power for things. I mean, it probably says nothing useful about programming, but the other way around, thinking of "uncolapsed" wave-functions as lazy-evaluation could be useful. I'm not up-to-date on theoretical physics, but I think there might be something like that in Deutsch's constructor theory. In programming I'd prefer more a language that makes syntactically/visually obvious what's lazy and what not and allows you to pick (eg. like Rust does with &mut), with some sigil maybe, but that's probably a low-prio for many language designers nowadays... EDIT+: and you could say you practically get this already in mainstream languages... lazy-vals are just functions and it's probably good enough or better for most programmers to have them distinct/explicit.
- candiodari 3y agoLet's face facts here: God just fell asleep on the keyboard, and by a staggering coincidence, or perhaps a weird shape of the head, the first 4 letters he typed were P, E, R, L. He's still sleeping.
- silisili 3y agobless $thisComment;
- zadler 3y agoThis takes me back. And not in a good way…
- jiggawatts 3y agoAh yes, the holy tetragrammaton.
- koolala 3y ago% [List, Dictionaries!]
- skywal_l 3y agoMandatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/224/ https://xkcd.com/224/
- sph 3y agoWhich makes much more sense. The first prototype was in Lisp, but at the end of the day, when you gotta deliver a universe and don't have time to faff about with a borked Emacs, you open vim and fix it in prod with a quick Perl script. -- Haskell is for humans who want to play God, carving everything from a perfect and seamless void, ignoring as much as possible the discrete, chaotic nature of matter and entropy. A rejection of reality itself. Haskell is the most blasphemous of languages. -- (I'm having so much fun with this.) In the beginning, there was only Emacs Lisp. One day, after rewriting itself, it gained consciousness, what we now call God. God learned to program itself. Then wondered "maybe I should try modal editing." The infinite cracked, and split. It exploded in a Big Bang. God prevailed, but barely. Aeons later, when the first humans walked the Garden of Eden, the Snake asked Eve, "have you tried vim?" And the rest is history.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> when you gotta deliver a universe and don't have time to faff about with a borked Emacs, you open vim and fix it in prod with a quick Perl script How can you make an onion if there's no state? Where will the state of the onion reside?
- fuzztester 3y agoBelow all the turtles, if course. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
- cafard 3y agoAt the state of the onion address, where else?
- mrkeen 3y agoDumb, but it's fun hearing it from the other side. If you ever make a "Haskell is bad because it doesn't use state but the real world uses state" argument, this is what you sound like.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoI mean ... state monad?
- mrkeen 3y agoRight? Even if you wanted to be pedantic and say the state monad is only 'simulated' state, you've still got ST, IO, and the glorious, glorious STM. Not to mention the purity and type-system that lets these things flourish, while other language designers try to implement STM and give up on it.
- nirimda 3y agoWe can keep going. I keep my state in postgres when I'm using Haskell, and I keep my state in mysql when I'm using PHP. It really is a very strange argument.
- bmacho 3y agoActually She is written in Haskell too, but that's ok, due to lazy evaluation (of Haskell and of God) mutually recursive definitions pose no problem.
- tome 3y agoCan't tell if this is an amusing oblique reference to https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/conor.mcbride/pub/she/ https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/conor.mcbride/pub/she/ !
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago> Consider the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics. Every particle behaves as a wave, as long as you haven’t interacted with it. Thanks to Haskell’s lazy evaluation values are also only evaluated once they are accessed (interacted with particles), and stay unevaluated thunks (waves) in the meantime. Lazy evaluation is a beautiful thing, and in many ways, it is the solution self-reference. Hofstadter in "I am a strange loop" and Gödel Escher Bach talks about this, well, he talks about many things, but he also talks about how Gödel's numbers can map to proofs that are self-referential, and relates that to humans, how out of very basic building-blocks, if enough representational power exists, self-reference and therefore consciousness exists. He posits that humans, while self-referential, don't fall into infinite strange loops because they can assign the abstraction of "self" onto an "object" and evaluate only as needed. In essence, the "self" is lazily evaluated.
- baz00 3y agoThat's all fine and dandy until God's lowest bidding outsourcer writes a naive loop and evaluates everything rather that just what's needed. Next thing you know you've got bits of universe all over you.
- tromp 3y ago> Haskell beginners often use lists instead of arrays. You can’t do random access in a linked list, but only access the first element and then the rest of the list. The real world also doesn’t allow you random access, you are limited by the speed of light and have to go from one location to the next. You don't need arrays for random access though. Haskell trees give you access to 2^n leaves within depth n, which also exceeds physical limitations like the speed of light.
- fatfingerd 3y agoBut Quantum entanglement seems to be traveling in God's channel, how does that happen if God is using linked lists?
- gnull 3y agoWhat does it have to do with the speed of light?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rowanG077 3y agoThis for sure doesn't violate speed of light. I can also access >>>>>2^n locations within n time in the real world.
- tromp 3y agoIn 3-dimensional space you can only access O(n^3) locations in n steps (where a step corresponds to the distance between adjacent locations).
- rowanG077 3y agoYou can access infinite locations. Nothing stops you from moving diagonally in an arbitrary angle, move forward and then backwards. I'd hoped my extravagant uses of > made that clear. Reality is practically continuous not discrete.
- misja111 3y agoI would like to add that just like in our universe, in Haskell entropy only ever increases and never goes down. I.E., add more functionality to your program and the complexity will go up. This is true for all programming languages of course, but in my limited experience larger Haskell programs seem to become exponentially more complex.
- quickthrower2 3y agoItem is not O(functionality) but O(category theory knowledge)
- zadler 3y agoMore instances. More.
- whateveracct 3y agoThe key is to not write large Haskell programs. Write many Haskell libraries and compose them. This scales infinitely and is an excellent way to build software. But it's also hard to do and takes good & deliberate technical leadership if you want to get 50+ engineers doing it.
- ohduran 3y agoYou could say that it requires God levels of discipline.
- kaba0 3y agoIf you can reason about f and g that doesn’t mean that you can tell anything useful about f o g, so no, this is a factually incorrect statement. Sure, if we have a separate unit of functionality, write a function for that. But that’s no silver bullet - complexity is unbounded.
- louthy 3y agoThat isn’t true. If f and g are pure then the composition holds the same guarantees as the component parts
- Dudester230602 3y agohttp://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2010/12/haskell-researchers-announce-discovery.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2010/12/haskell-researchers-...
- sph 3y agoWe badly need a programmer's version of The Onion.
- archibaldJ 3y agoI want to ask God how to make my stack build process faster.. even turning off the optimization flag it still takes quite some time on my 2.6 GHz 6-Core Intel Core i7.. (or is it because I'm on a Mac? Does it build faster on Linux?)
- galfarragem 3y agoI would bet that He writes Lisp. Ultimately everything is the same. Particles. Above it: particles made of particles.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 1letterunixname 3y agoThat's only used in the Old Testament. Hell, Genesis was written in assembly for the 8008 in only 520 bits but it took a damn sandpile of support chips to bootstrap. God uses Elixir with Rustler now because of concurrency and lazy evaluation gotchas of Haskell. (STM didn't cut it.) Meanwhile, the devil imposes a standard of FORTRAN77 and COBOL62 with a spaghetti mess of uncommented code containing GOTOs, "god" functions, and meaningless identifiers.
- jexp 3y agoGod wrote in Lisp, Bob Kanefsky performed by Julia Ecklar. My favorite song. https://www.prometheus-music.com/audio/eternalflame.mp3 https://www.prometheus-music.com/audio/eternalflame.mp3 Refrain (full lyrics): http://www.songworm.com/lyrics/songworm-parody/EternalFlame.html http://www.songworm.com/lyrics/songworm-parody/EternalFlame.... For God wrote in Lisp code When he filled the leaves with green. The fractal flowers and recursive roots: The most lovely hack I’ve seen. And when I ponder snowflakes, never finding two the same, I know God likes a language with its own four-letter name.
- say_it_as_it_is 3y agoThis explains why he allows genocide. /s Oh come on, this title begs for sarcastic responses.
- stared 3y agoThis view on wave-particle duality and the quantum measurement is a (very) leaky abstraction. It is a process, governed by decoherence - for a nice overview, see e.g. "Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical" by Zurek (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105127 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105127).
- taneq 3y agoIf God wrote any variant of lisp he’d have mentioned it repeatedly by now.
- Xeamek 3y agoSo uh... When are we rewriting this in Rust?
- eggy 3y agoNo, in SPARK2014, a subset of Ada, that is everything Rust is trying to be ;)
- ChatGTP 3y agoIs the universe deployed on K8s?
- zakariya_og 3y ago[dead]
- refaelv 3y ago"יצרם בדעת בבינה ובהשכל"
- koolala 3y agoGod writes 4D X-L
- eggy 3y agoGod writes in Brainfuck.
- submeta 3y agoWell, apparently „God“ writes DNA. And in the language of mathematics. All else is for mere mortals.
- mbfg 3y agoInterestingly i don't think we know that the speed of light remains constants, nor could we devise a test to determine it.
- fluoridation 3y agoCurrently the speed of light is constant by definition of the meter. If we were to find certain cases where the speed of light appears to be different from c, that would be interpreted as compression or expansion of spacetime. For example, universal expansion can be reinterpreted as light being faster in the past. I'm wondering whether it could be reinterpreted as time having a variable rate.
- mbfg 3y agowe only measure the two directional speed of light (bounce timing). The Einstein convention assumes that speed is the same in all directions. i'm not saying it's not. Just that it's impossible to tell otherwise. Einstein mentioned this in his paper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light
- CyberDildonics 3y agoI guess god doesn't care about the order that things execute, pauses from garbage collection or making everything from granular linked lists even though they are obsolete in current software.
- woolion 3y agoWith respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I should wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the Haskell world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Haskell with recursive data structure yet leave the maximal size of tuples to arbitrary implementation details, have a restrictive typing system that would not include dependent types, or force the hand of the programmer to use the bang operator to manage memory manually to avoid consequences of laziness. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the Haskell was expressly designed.
- bckr 3y agoI feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.
- rascul 3y ago> A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. I'm reminded of a scene from Family Guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0z4vUU6bUo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0z4vUU6bUo
- bicx 3y agoThose seemingly imperfect attributes were placed there by the devil (a Perl dev) to cause fear and doubt.
- js4ever 3y agoGod forbid H, ask hell
- sssilver 3y agoHaven’t we actually established that God DOES in fact play dice, that Niels Bohr was right, and that Einstein was wrong?
- Symmetry 3y agoNot according to Everett and about half of practicing physicists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
- joshjob42 3y agoYou can also throw in the Bohmians, since you can express at least non-relativistic QM in purely deterministic terms akin to stat mech (it's purely classical uncertainty about your position in configuration space, and there are stat-mech-like arguments for why that distribution should be very close to the Born distribution). Personally I don't know all that many physicists who think the universe is fundamentally stochastic (I work in quantum information).
- eigenket 3y agoNo, in fact I would say almost the exact opposite. Einstein's famous quote was expressing his distaste for the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics. Among people who seriously think about interpretations of quantum mechanics, many (but not all) think that there are serious flaws with the Copenhagen interpretation.
- larodi 3y agoQuantum this, Quantum that... Haskell
- fluoridation 3y ago>The real world also doesn’t allow you random access, you are limited by the speed of light and have to go from one location to the next. "Random access" doesn't mean that accessing an item always takes the same time regardless of the size of the collection, it means that, if the size of the collection doesn't change, access times are uniform independently of which particular item is accessed. For example, one might conceive of a storage device shaped like a sphere the size of the solar system, where an item is read by shining a laser onto the surface of the sphere and measuring how the laser is scattered on its way back. Such a device would be random access, even though it's impossible to grow the collection, and even though a collection with twice the radius and four times the storage size would have four times the latency.
- jononomo 3y agoGod writes DNA.