4 ms·

The linear functions/SMC work is really cool, but I am surprised to see the author calling it more mature than the compiling to CCCs work. The linear-smc librar

The linear functions/SMC work is really cool, but I am surprised to see the author calling it more mature than the compiling to CCCs work. The linear-smc library hasn't had an upload in a while, and it's currently missing any haddocks beyond the extracted type signatures. It's also a shame that it had to build its own typeclass for monoidal categories instead of using the one in https://hackage.haskell.org/package/categories https://hackage.haskell.org/package/categories . Meanwhile KittyHawk did actually use the compile-to-CCCs work to compile Haskell to C in https://github.com/sellout/compiling-anything-to-categories https://github.com/sellout/compiling-anything-to-categories and someone from there talks about it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUBj8NW7uMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUBj8NW7uMA I think the linear-smc work is more exciting and I hope it matures with a bit more elbow grease. There was an ICFP talk that accompanied the linked paper ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90OJz0QE4qE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90OJz0QE4qE ) and monoidal categories can model lots of "boxes and wires" things. Linear functions potentially give you a much more ergonomic DSL for building up those boxes-and-wires models, and in a way that lets you write abstractions that work over any model.

cryptonector 2y ago
> The linear functions/SMC work is really cool, but I am surprised to see the author calling it more mature than the compiling to CCCs work. TFA doesn't call that more mature, just more workable and a thinner abstraction that presumably compiles to more efficient code than the proc-based alternative.
- _jackdk_ 2y ago
  Fair. I think I mentally swapped adjectives while composing my response.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    Calling the proc stuff not mature might be totally fair when you consider that TFA got almost everything they wanted w/o it and the interface they got is more natural and the compiled code more efficient! Or it might just be fair to say that it is mature and just the wrong tool for TFA's task. I wouldn't know which is the case -- I'm not at the level of making my own categories.

cryptonector 2y ago

> The linear functions/SMC work is really cool, but I am surprised to see the author calling it more mature than the compiling to CCCs work. TFA doesn't call that more mature, just more workable and a thinner abstraction that presumably compiles to more efficient code than the proc-based alternative.

_jackdk_ 2y ago
Fair. I think I mentally swapped adjectives while composing my response.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Calling the proc stuff not mature might be totally fair when you consider that TFA got almost everything they wanted w/o it and the interface they got is more natural and the compiled code more efficient! Or it might just be fair to say that it is mature and just the wrong tool for TFA's task. I wouldn't know which is the case -- I'm not at the level of making my own categories.