3 ms·
But there isn’t anything hilarious about that. It’s a clear-minded and deliberate approach to reconciling principle with pragmatic utility. We can debate wheth
by eyelidlessness 11mo ago
But there isn’t anything hilarious about that.
It’s a clear-minded and deliberate approach to reconciling principle with pragmatic utility. We can debate whether it’s the best approach, but it isn’t like… logically inconsistent, surprising, or lacking in self awareness.
- pxc 11mo agoYou might also think of it a bit like poetry: creativity emerging from the process of working within formal constraints. By asking how you can represent something familiar in a specially structured way, you can learn both about that structure and the thing you're trying to unite with it. Occasionally, you'll even create something beautiful or powerful, as well. Maybe in that sense there's an "artificial" challenge involved, but it's artificial in the sense of being deliberate rather than merely arbitrary or absurd.
- eyelidlessness 11mo agoThis is a fantastic way to put it, thank you for adding it!
- StopDisinfo910 11mo agoYou don’t see what’s hilarious about recreating what you are pretending to remove only one abstraction level removed? Anyway, I have great hopes for effect system as a way to approach this in a principled way. I really like what Ocaml is currently doing with concurrency. It’s clear to me that there is great value to unlock here.
- eyelidlessness 11mo agoI don’t agree with your characterization that anyone is “pretending”. The whole point of abstraction is convenience of reasoning. No one is fooling themselves or anyone else, nor trying to. It’s a conscious choice, for clear purposes. That’s precisely as hilarious as using another abstraction you might favor more, such as an effect system.