codygman

45 ms·

331.
by codygman 11y ago
> 10 lines of Haskell can take hours of mindfuck trying to peer through the functor and monad operators, Please stop. Can you even come up with one example that supports this? Alright, now how about 10 lines from a "real world"
332.
by codygman 11y ago
That's a little different I think. What are the potential repercussions of not intimately understanding monads and the monad laws in Haskell? Much lesser than not understanding ruddering into a turn I'd guess, though I don't
333.
by codygman 11y ago
> How is this working exactly? Well who cares. I know that once this function is called, my state will have been incremented by the given amount. Precisely. Then once you've used Haskell in many projects and gotten a handle on usin
334.
by codygman 11y ago
Stop trying to get them and use some specific monads. Monads are nothing but something that satisfies 3 laws. This is what helped me most.
335.
by codygman 11y ago
There seemed to be an implication that Hindley Milner type inference leads to unpredictable performance, you can see that is untrue with ml and ocaml.
336.
by codygman 11y ago
Space leaks are a bad example imo since they happen in other languages as well.
337.
by codygman 11y ago
I agree that the Julia looks nicer, despite the fact I usually dislike so much nesting. > the fact that mutable part (the `writePolicy`) has to be written in a different style than the pure parts since it is a monadic action seems cumber
338.
by codygman 11y ago
Interface{} (not interfaces as a whole) and subtyping would make compiling slower. I think sum types and pattern matching would compile faster and be more sensible.
339.
by codygman 11y ago
I'm very thankful for your work in figuring out how to make more static guarantees in Go code.
340.
by codygman 11y ago
> Hacker News is full of really bright people who like the expressiveness of Haskell et al. So it's not surprising that Rob's not going over well here. Just saying that us dumb people really appreciate his efforts. Some of us u
341.
by codygman 11y ago
> Alright, I'll give you that there are a ton of GHC extensions after getting a list of them, all 106 as of GHC 7.10[0]. This does make me wonder why having so many extensions was never an issue for me. > The Haskell community re
342.
by codygman 11y ago
> Go puts a big emphasis on documentation, and this often compensates for lack of power in its type system. This could be reworded to: > Any language X that puts a big emphasis on documentation compensates for lack of power in its Y.
343.
by codygman 11y ago
> The Haskell crowd seems to write monad tutorials that are either cute or unintellegible, and stratosphere-high level stuff where I wouldn't have the slightest clue what I can use them for (Arrows? Zippers?). There are "Real W
344.
by codygman 11y ago
> This is subjective, but having tried Elm with its Haskellish type system, it seems that the type system makes me think hard about things that ultimately don't matter much. It might depend on your problem, but I doubt it. Even doin
345.
by codygman 11y ago
> it's basically a few really awesome modern features in a massive graveyard of failed academic initiatives that are now enshrined in the lore of the language because one or two useful libraries used them. Err... can you qualify thi
346.
by codygman 11y ago
> Regarding Haskell specifically, Haskell makes it cumbersome to write code that mutates data structures Can you provide some Haskell examples that are cumbersome, then provide an example that isn't in another language of your choic
347.
by codygman 11y ago
That link seems to be dead :/
348.
by codygman 11y ago
I have a video in my watch queue that shows Facebook is: https://youtu.be/sl2zo7tzrO8
349.
by codygman 11y ago
> Yes, you can write high-performance Haskell but it requires expertise or huge amount of profiling and time. Is there a language X that allows you to write high performance X without huge amounts of profiling and time? > On the other
350.
by codygman 11y ago
http://www.shenlanguage.org/
351.
by codygman 11y ago
Have you ever talked to one of the many people who write Lisp,scheme, or Clojure for real world applications and even get paid for it. There are many advantages to writing real world applications in a lisp.
352.
by codygman 11y ago
There are many reasons using sexp's can be better than just writing Go including but not limited to: - structured editing of source code - macros (dry, dsl's, etc) - if your Go code uses interface{} everywhere you'll probably
353.
by codygman 11y ago
> 3. Great dependency (package) management Eh... Then why are people experimenting with vendoring? > If you check other languages against the list they lack at least one of the above. If you feel any other language is better suited pl
354.
by codygman 11y ago
Just now seeing this, wondering if it will generate code readable enough to contribute to Go projects.
355.
by codygman 11y ago
Haskell isn't esoteric.
356.
by codygman 11y ago
Do you have any examples of what you consider really bad Purescript compiler errors?
357.
by codygman 11y ago
In Haskell a lot of it is due to people thinking they need to deeply understand everything before cranking out code. It's like trying to understand music theory before strumming some guitar strings... actually it's probably someth
358.
by codygman 11y ago
There are tons of reasons Go would want generics.
359.
by codygman 11y ago
I wish the gdb support were better or that delve were more stable. I also had some weirdnesses using cgo on osx. Then I went into #go-nuts on freenode, and I got told I was wrong and there was no problem. Back in 2009 #go-nuts seemed to be
360.
by codygman 11y ago
The way to do so in Haskell is putting "Safe" in the Language section of a cabal file, and it covers other stuff like partial functions IIRC. Are you saying that Java has something similar to SafeHaskell? Are you saying they are n

More ›