9 ms·

>So you keep going on and on about how this is wrong, and doesn't work, and doesn't exist, and it's impossible, because it isn't implemented in Haskell? Serious

>So you keep going on and on about how this is wrong, and doesn't work, and doesn't exist, and it's impossible, because it isn't implemented in Haskell? Seriously? Yeah seriously. You actually don't know what you're talking about. You're not convinced. I'm failing on that end, but this is real, you're not understanding me. Haskell one of the languages with the most advanced type systems in practical programming. Algebraic data types. You clearly haven't used it so of course you remain unconvinced. >This is one of the strangest and worst interactions I've had on this site, because I essentially made a comment that goes "the sky is blue, but it looks better at sunset when red" and you keep going "nu-uh! Impossible! Doesn't work! The sky is blue, nothing else makes sense!" It seems this way to you because frankly, you're not very knowledgeable of what I'm talking about. Read my other replies. I left one more to explain it to you in a bigger way. Hopefully you'll get it and stop violating the rules here with personal insults and calling this the "worst" and "strangest" interactions you ever had on this site. It's just fucking rude. This is my last explanation for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38391431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38391431 If you still don't get it, well I can't help you.

Timon3 3y ago
> Haskell one of the languages with the most advanced type systems in practical programming. Algebraic data types. You clearly haven't used it so of course you remain unconvinced. Wrong. > It seems this way to you because frankly, you're not very knowledgeable of what I'm talking about. This wouldn't come across quite as bad if I didn't literally post an example long ago. If you're so knowledgeable about all this, why can't you acknowledge the examples I've already given? Why are you ignoring them?
- corethree 3y ago
  I'm not, I acknowledge everything you say. It may seem that I'm not acknowledging stuff. But this is not the case. I read and understand all your posts. You on the other hand. I doubt you read or understood all my responses to you. You only partially understand. I also don't think you have used haskell before. This is what I mean. You aren't knowledgeable.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > I'm not, I acknowledge everything you say. It may seem that I'm not acknowledging stuff. But this is not the case. I read and understand all your posts. Then why have you not yet acknowledged the Typescript concat function I posted here yesterday? You have since written 16 replies, not a single one of which acknowledges this. Why do you keep not acknowledging that I gave you the function you consider impossible?

Timon3 3y ago

> Haskell one of the languages with the most advanced type systems in practical programming. Algebraic data types. You clearly haven't used it so of course you remain unconvinced. Wrong. > It seems this way to you because frankly, you're not very knowledgeable of what I'm talking about. This wouldn't come across quite as bad if I didn't literally post an example long ago. If you're so knowledgeable about all this, why can't you acknowledge the examples I've already given? Why are you ignoring them?

corethree 3y ago
I'm not, I acknowledge everything you say. It may seem that I'm not acknowledging stuff. But this is not the case. I read and understand all your posts. You on the other hand. I doubt you read or understood all my responses to you. You only partially understand. I also don't think you have used haskell before. This is what I mean. You aren't knowledgeable.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > I'm not, I acknowledge everything you say. It may seem that I'm not acknowledging stuff. But this is not the case. I read and understand all your posts. Then why have you not yet acknowledged the Typescript concat function I posted here yesterday? You have since written 16 replies, not a single one of which acknowledges this. Why do you keep not acknowledging that I gave you the function you consider impossible?