Quekid5

71 ms·

781.
by Quekid5 7y ago
I'll admit that it's not much of a strategy, but I don't read email on my phone. (I'm not being snarky or sarcastic, btw. Of course, if you actually really need to be responding to email in real time then I'm afra
782.
by Quekid5 7y ago
> It's not faster because it's better, it's faster because it is doing less. I can't recall who said it, but this reminds me of this idea: If you don't care about correctness then I can make it as fast as you lik
783.
by Quekid5 7y ago
You can think of Nothing and Just as functions that construct a MaybeInteger. Nothing takes no parameters because there's no value there, so why would it? Just takes an integer and gives you a MaybeInteger containing the integer you su
784.
by Quekid5 7y ago
I'm just trying to understand... is your beef here with the particular choice of verbiage? (FWIW, I think it's absolutely right to call into question what the reader may have learned if an article is misleading. We can argue about
785.
by Quekid5 7y ago
In the same way that RFAD is. It distracts from one's own life and "at least I haven't got it that bad".
786.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Absolutely, a practical understanding is enough. It also suffices for monads, monad transformers, etc. > Every time that functional programming patterns get discussed, though, there is a mad rush by functional programmers to impress upon
787.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Please don't do the "I'll never understand this" thing! Sure, it's possible that you never will, but mostly it's just about trying and practicing... IFAIUI the current scientifically supported thinking is that
788.
by Quekid5 7y ago
> No, it doesn't. I know people from developing countries. I'm married to one. Universally, every single one of them wants to get the fuck out, and they do everything in their power to get out. > That's reality in a dev
789.
by Quekid5 7y ago
All of your family is there. All your friends are there. All that you own is there. All that you've ever known is there. You may not know any other language than your native one. You: "Why don't you just move?" This real
790.
by Quekid5 7y ago
It's simple. I'm just saying that (for most frameworks) it's a lot of work and boilerplate. It's also easy to miss individual cases during code review, etc.
791.
by Quekid5 7y ago
I tend to agree. Movies in general seem to be escapism[0]. Even incredibly depressing/artful movies like Requiem For A Dream, Joker (since it was brought up on this thread), Irréversible, The Truman Show, Martyrs, Saw, etc. are a form
792.
by Quekid5 7y ago
I definitely agree that "lose all ability[...]" is probably a tad too strong :). > To the extent that the libraries and the ecosystem doen't make inappropriate use of unsafe behavior, you can have your impurity and relia
793.
by Quekid5 7y ago
> Meantime, systemd is now taking over my logs, network, device tree, time service, cron, and more. This is a misrepresentation. It does have components for all of those things, but AFAIK only journald and udev (I think) are non-optional
794.
by Quekid5 7y ago
> Just consider how extremely hard it is to set up systems of dynamic dispatch in Haskell. What? Make a record of function values. Done. You can also go with an existentially qualified type with type class constraints if you just want th
795.
by Quekid5 7y ago
I don't understand this response. Most of our use cases have always done fine with a simple JSON document store -- no reinvention or anything. Most of our Queries are just a simple PostgreSQL table with an Aggregate ID and a JSON colum
796.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Like you, I've found the general idea of CQRS/ES[0] incredibly valuable because it both enforces a functional approach to state (e.g. 'current state' is a fold over events), and it forces people to really think about the
797.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Yeah, conjectures. I think I got mixed up because there's a theorem about the non-trivial-conjuectures-are-unprovable thing :)
798.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Exactly. I intentionally avoid GND because it can be quite wonky, and DerivingVia basically subsumes it. You do still have to have slightly more explicit declarations of instances, but IMO it's worth it for the control.
799.
by Quekid5 7y ago
I generally like this approach, but it's unfortunately really cumbersome in most mainstream languages like Java (and even Scala 2.x) or C#, but it works beautifully in Haskell because of two features: - non-exported newtypes (also know
800.
by Quekid5 7y ago
(Not that I buy into any conspiracy theories, but...) I'm guessing it's because Ghislaine Maxwell (who has now gone underground, whereabouts unknown) was intimately tied to Epstein, and her father Robert Maxwell has plausible ties
801.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Quoting the person you quoted > > “When you find a problem in the source code, it’s very difficult to explain the consequences of that problem to a judge or jury,” he told me. “It’s written in a foreign language, and the effects are h
802.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Not to be argumentative, honestly, that sound pretty laughable if you don't have an equivalent of an algebraic effect system (or similar). A "function" in Rust can do a whole bunch of stuff that is not signaled by its type si
803.
by Quekid5 7y ago
I think you're exactly right about the "category of systems" thing. If you're "just"[0] moving protobufs across networks, then Go seems like a perfect langauge, esp. if you can just codegen the protobuf code. T
804.
by Quekid5 7y ago
This is important -- it means that restic can trivially be used with e.g. S3.
805.
by Quekid5 7y ago
> Also Dart is a counterexample. I think OP might have meant that big backing is a necessary condition, not necessarily a sufficient one.
806.
by Quekid5 7y ago
I don't think that's an example of what was being talked about, but... I appreciate the issue. I think I've even been bitten by this once! I think the problem there is really calling it 'length'.
807.
by Quekid5 7y ago
> meaning I can make those literals evaluate to my own types by defining a few instances. If you're defining instances, you're already an "expert", so why are you defining instances that are "hostile" to you
808.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Probably not. It's one of these responses we see on every Haskell/Idris/etc. post, except this time is formatted as a sort of Concern Troll. (I have no idea what would motivate a person to do such a thing, but people are weir
809.
by Quekid5 7y ago
> If you have wizards, that is. I'd just like to call attention to this. There is no wizardry to learning (basic) Haskell very well, i.e. to such a degree that using an Elm-like library would not be an obstacle to getting the job
810.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Unless you're willing to be more concrete, I'm going to invoke one of my favorite aphorisms: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Christopher Hitchens)

More ›