9 ms·

>1) The automatic parallelization opportunities of HOFs don't happen in practice nearly as often as you'd expect. Sorry, but it's true. Haskell's "map" doesn't

by runT1ME 11y ago

>1) The automatic parallelization opportunities of HOFs don't happen in practice nearly as often as you'd expect. Sorry, but it's true. Haskell's "map" doesn't parallelize automatically. Maybe in your world, but not in Scala. Happens all the time in scala, if you're using a HOF on any monadic context it's trivial to add additional context to allow for parallelism without changing the underlying structure of any subsequent code.

javajosh 11y ago
My hobby: probabilistically down-voting jargon-laden comments on HN. Mere jargon gets a 50% chance of downvote (I flip a coin); that shoots to 100% when someone uses jargon and the word "trivial".
- runT1ME 11y ago
  So, in addition to knowingly violating HN etiquette you are bragging about your ignorance? Tell me why what I said isn't 'trivial'? If you aren't familiar with the concepts, then how could you even know if what I said was simple or not?
  - javajosh 11y ago
    >if you're using a HOF on any monadic context it's trivial to add additional context to allow for parallelism without changing the underlying structure of any subsequent code. If that's not head-up-your-ass jargon, then I don't know what is. And I'll continue to down-vote stuff like that. Writing is about communicating, not demonstrating how smart you are. Abusing me as ignorant tells me you have little interest in communicating, and confirms you were posturing. And how do you know what I am or am not familiar with? Jargon is orthogonal to content.
    - runT1ME 11y ago
      >To me, docker can be thought of as a process wrapper. The executable is called an image, and the running process called a container. That's from a comment of yours. It's meaningless to me because I don't know much about deployment/dev-ops etc. Now I could lash out out of some insecurity and say that you're just using "jargon", or I could take some responsibility and look up those words.
      - javajosh 11y ago
        You don't know what "process" and "executable" means? You've got more important things to do than troll me, then.

by runT1ME 11y ago

javajosh 11y ago

My hobby: probabilistically down-voting jargon-laden comments on HN. Mere jargon gets a 50% chance of downvote (I flip a coin); that shoots to 100% when someone uses jargon and the word "trivial".

runT1ME 11y ago
So, in addition to knowingly violating HN etiquette you are bragging about your ignorance? Tell me why what I said isn't 'trivial'? If you aren't familiar with the concepts, then how could you even know if what I said was simple or not?
- javajosh 11y ago
  >if you're using a HOF on any monadic context it's trivial to add additional context to allow for parallelism without changing the underlying structure of any subsequent code. If that's not head-up-your-ass jargon, then I don't know what is. And I'll continue to down-vote stuff like that. Writing is about communicating, not demonstrating how smart you are. Abusing me as ignorant tells me you have little interest in communicating, and confirms you were posturing. And how do you know what I am or am not familiar with? Jargon is orthogonal to content.
  - runT1ME 11y ago
    >To me, docker can be thought of as a process wrapper. The executable is called an image, and the running process called a container. That's from a comment of yours. It's meaningless to me because I don't know much about deployment/dev-ops etc. Now I could lash out out of some insecurity and say that you're just using "jargon", or I could take some responsibility and look up those words.
    - javajosh 11y ago
      You don't know what "process" and "executable" means? You've got more important things to do than troll me, then.