Kutta

12 ms·

61.
by Kutta 11y ago
Poor post. One of the worst thing you can do in a debate is to psychoanalyze your opponents, ascribe their stances to some sort of personality trait, and ignore the object level. More mundanely, it's just ad hominem, "haters gonna
62.
by Kutta 11y ago
I'm skeptical that an ordinary Java person would ever think of this particular solution. Composing a list of `A -> A` functions into a single one is already sort of a tall order. They would also have to realize that `(B, A) -> A`
63.
by Kutta 11y ago
`type Extension s = s -> Endo Result` is already good enough IMO, since it's `Monoid` and we can also contramap thanks to `Profunctor (->)`. We don't have to bring in `ApAp`, which is anyway called `Compose` in `Data.Functor
64.
by Kutta 11y ago
Except that Purescript uses the liberty from Haskell legacy libraries to become even more hardcore on algebra and categoric language. The relatively small user base also consist of experienced Haskellers, and the libraries tend to be quite
65.
by Kutta 11y ago
If causality works like that, perhaps may mom could be also become President.
66.
by Kutta 11y ago
I looked at Elm, PureScript and GHJS, and chose PureScript for pretty much the mentioned reasons (powerful types, clean output, easy JS interop). I have a lot of experience in Haskell, and I find it refreshing that PureScript libraries and
67.
by Kutta 11y ago
That's an uncharitable reading and you know it.
68.
by Kutta 11y ago
Is there any reason to single out Nuprl for this though? We could slap SMT onto a wide range of elaborators (as it has been a stated goal for the Lean prover, and there has been attempts in Isabelle, Coq and Agda too if I recall correctly).
69.
by Kutta 11y ago
> would represent knowing close to everything about the physical world that its possible to know. That's a severe misunderstanding of what it means to have a unified physical theory. The current standard model of physics allows us t
70.
by Kutta 11y ago
Even if human intelligence was the pinnacle, AI could be still extremely dangerous just by running at accelerated simulation speed and using huge amounts of subjective time to invent faster hardware. See https://intelligence.org&
71.
by Kutta 11y ago
Please don't propagate this crap. The stories came out only after the guy publicly paraded himself as Nakamoto. Quite possibly we would have gotten articles published even if Wright didn't "out" himself, but I highly dou
72.
by Kutta 11y ago
Almost certainly, the AI safety pie getting bigger will translate to more resources for MIRI too. That said, although a lot of money and publicity was thrown around regarding AI safety in the last year, so far I haven't seen any resear
73.
by Kutta 11y ago
It's not particularly worse than monad transformers with respect to non-commutative effects. With monad transformers, one can trip up just as happily on exceptions, and mtl-style stack-polymorphic code can be run with various effect or
74.
by Kutta 11y ago
Eff needs some additional optimization or some extra compiler support before it can thrive in the wild, because the constant overheads are pretty severe. The asymptotic overheads though are really good, basically they managed to get rid of
75.
by Kutta 11y ago
I don't see why Haskell's in an awkward situation. Adding more strictness support to GHC is not particularly hard and it's happening already. It's far easier to add strictness to GHC than to launch a competitor productio
76.
by Kutta 11y ago
It's been there for a while, although not intensely advertised: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.8.1.0/docs/Numeri...
77.
by Kutta 11y ago
Nice username! The strict pragma is not an admission of mistake anymore than any pragma and language extension is an admission of mistake. It's a feature, dammit. Also, note that laziness was an exploratory design deicision made 25 yea
78.
by Kutta 11y ago
https://intelligence.org/files/AIPosNegFactor.pdf Is the oldest source that I remember (from page 37).
79.
by Kutta 11y ago
Categories are just an utterly pared-down notion of composability, so most of the time you don't even recognize them in the wild (like the associativity of monads, which on an abstract level says that only the sequence of instructions
80.
by Kutta 11y ago
Relatively high compared to what? With GHC we have a single-word header on objects, which compares favorably to C# which usually has two-word headers, or Java, which similarly uses one word. Of course, GC-less languages like Rust or C++ hav
81.
by Kutta 11y ago
The species for which revival is technologically plausible are those with well-preserved frozen specimens, mainly pleistocene (mega)fauna like mammoths and the lions presented here. They lived at most a few tens of thousands of years ago, w
82.
by Kutta 11y ago
Alternate pointfree Haskell syntax: (*) <$> [2,4..8] <*> [-1, 0, 1] or liftA2 (*) [2, 4..8] [-1, 0, 1]
83.
by Kutta 11y ago
Technically speaking, for each program in a TC language we can have a program in a coinductive total language with the same observable behavior. In nutshell to those who may not be familiar with the field: total languages differ from partia
84.
by Kutta 11y ago
> instance heads Instance heads are the types in the instance declaration that the compiler dispatches on, for example in `instance Show Int` the head is `Int`. > named instances You can see an example for named instances in Idris (ve
85.
by Kutta 11y ago
I consider coherence seriously mainly because Edward Kmett supports it, and he has immense experience regarding the relative merits of coherent vs. incoherent classes in practical development. One core Kmett argument that I subscribe to is
86.
by Kutta 11y ago
Current GHC by default either prevents me from getting incoherence or at least throws warnings on orphan instances. What matters is whether a) someone not caring about incoherence writes coherent classes by default, just by not trying to ac
87.
by Kutta 11y ago
(very similar systems are already implemented in Agda and Coq)
88.
by Kutta 11y ago
This post engages in plenty of armchair speculation, and is overall horribly vague, or just nonsense ("addOneTwo works on any type that’s provably isomorphic to Integer"). It's more like a plea for all things that seem intuit
89.
by Kutta 11y ago
That's not good. We can put an instance into a runtime box, pass it to another module, and now there are potentially two different instances to choose from in the other module. We'd have to ban moving around instances in runtime d
90.
by Kutta 11y ago
A bit quaint in the light of the past 15 years. I find it amusing that the paper uses the phrase "type-based formalisms" instead of "type theory".

More ›