chowells

80 ms·

961.
by chowells 13y ago
Though the GHC runtime isn't an example of immutable data. Haskell code actually results in a lot of mutation behind the scenes. It's quite possible for older generations to point to data in newer generations in Haskell. It'
962.
by chowells 13y ago
No one's worried about the entire concept? It seems a little counter-intuitive to tell someone else your secrets, so they can hide them.
963.
by chowells 13y ago
They should just have the client send the server a full permutation. It's just an array of 52 numbers, quick to verify, quick to execute. It also has the full range of 52! permutations, meaning no matter what permutation the server generate
964.
by chowells 13y ago
Haskell is not an ML. Not even close .
965.
by chowells 13y ago
"Sufficiently advanced trolling is indistinguishable from ignorance." I'm leaning slightly towards troll due to the smiley face. But I find myself forced to reply anyway, because such a good tutorial came out recently that covers doing exa
966.
by chowells 14y ago
It's true that the abstraction got attention when they realized it solved the IO problem. (Before the IO type, IO in Haskell was painful .) It's quite possible it wouldn't have become a significant part of the ecosystem without the fact th
967.
by chowells 14y ago
I'd ask, if you know that IO and monads are different, why your first statement was conflating the purpose of IO with the purpose of the monad interface? If I just totally missed a joke - ok, my mistake. But if you really don't see why it m
968.
by chowells 14y ago
You've just proved that the monad tutorials you've read are useless. Monads are emphatically not "a way of encapsulating side-effects in a pure lazy language". Haskell's IO type is a way of encapsulating side effects in a pure lazy language