eeperson

20 ms·

151.
by eeperson 13y ago
As far as I can tell, Haskell does box everything: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.0.1/html/users_guide/primi...
152.
by eeperson 13y ago
On Debian (KDE 4.10) it does this by default. So, there must be a way to do it. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what that configuration is. Maybe if you open it with your keyboard 'alt+f1'?
153.
by eeperson 13y ago
I guess I wasn't clear in my previous question. I know you can build a blocking interface our of a non-blocking one. My question was how you go the other way. How do you create a non-blocking interface of of a blocking one. The par
154.
by eeperson 13y ago
How do run blocking code in a way that doesn't block an OS thread? Is there some abstraction that allows this that I'm missing?
155.
by eeperson 13y ago
Aren't blocking operations also a problem if M:N threads are baked in to the runtime? If all of the idomatic APIs are using non-blocking IO then would there still be a problem?
156.
by eeperson 13y ago
If you have 1:1 threads in a language, can't you implement M:N threading as a library? Looking at projects like Akka[1] makes me think this is the case. Is there reason this can't be done that I am missing? Why would you want M
157.
by eeperson 13y ago
Servlet container restarts don't have to have a huge overhead for development (not sure about using a full j2ee container). If you use SBT[1] plus the the xsbt-web-plugin[2] then restarts are just as fast as they are for node projects
158.
by eeperson 13y ago
Yes, you can't combine libraries compiled for 2.10 and 2.8. No one disputes this. Yes, this is a problem. How much will vary from project to project. However, while you may think that binary compatibility is 'laughable', to i
159.
by eeperson 13y ago
I would argue that Groovy and Clojure require just as much conversion (I have no idea about Kotlin). Scala and Clojure both require conversion if you want to use idiomatic data structures. I think Groovy is actually worse about this beca
160.
by eeperson 13y ago
From the article: > This self-limiting process means that Scala will never truly die out; at any point, there are still more people who are new to Scala than people who have been burnt by it, so there’s always a fresh supply of people wi
161.
by eeperson 13y ago
That isn't intended to be a Scala successor. That is intended to be integrated in future versions of Scala.
162.
by eeperson 13y ago
Why do you think that those doing research inside Typesafe are steering the language in a direction that is user hostile? From what I have seen the effort appears to be more focused on simplifying the language in order to make it easier to
163.
by eeperson 13y ago
Scala kind of follows semantic versioning. If the first 2 numbers are the same then they are binary compatible (at least starting with version 2.9.0). So version 2.9.1 is compatible with 2.9.3. Otherwise they are still source compatible,
164.
by eeperson 13y ago
I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem. SBT, leiningen, maven and pretty much every other build tool on the JVM supports publishing source jars. I think SBT even does it by default. Nearly all of the open source projects I
165.
by eeperson 13y ago
The syntax got much nicer in SBT 0.13: http://www.scala-sbt.org/0.13.0/docs/Community/ChangeSummary...
166.
by eeperson 13y ago
Why do you want this?
167.
by eeperson 13y ago
Wouldn't a thread still have to block somewhere? How would you call the synchronous code without blocking on any threads?
168.
by eeperson 13y ago
How does the Quasar know when it should defer execution of something that might block? Does the user declare this in some fashion? In the article, it looks like this is done with try-with-resource blocks.
169.
by eeperson 13y ago
If a hypothesis doesn't contradict the known facts, how do you determine if it is warranted? You only require evidence if you expect others to believe the same thing. I'm not arguing that anyone should believe in any religion. I&#
170.
by eeperson 13y ago
It sounds like we are talking past each other slightly. It sounds like you are trying to produce the probability that a proof is found that P=NP in a given year. However, I'm asking for the probability that ultimately P=NP. What would
171.
by eeperson 13y ago
>It is a made up number. So what? It's not made up out of thin air though. Wait what? Yes you can assign a probability to everything, it doesn't necessarily mean anything, but you can do it. I hope that is not how you prove all
172.
by eeperson 13y ago
Bayesian probability still requires data as an input or your result is meaningless. If you start with a made up value and update it with more made up values, you still have a made up value. You still haven't offered any explanation fo
173.
by eeperson 13y ago
That doesn't make sense. Once you have clear evidence of something, it is no longer a hypothesis. You can start with any hypothesis you want. Of course if you expect something to be treated as scientific fact you need clear evidence.
174.
by eeperson 13y ago
That is a gross misunderstanding of both uncertainty and science. Uncertainty is based on measurements made. The 1% you came up with is an entirely made up number. Also, science is explicitly not about assumptions. It is requires testable p
175.
by eeperson 13y ago
I understand that statistics are an important tool in 'proving' things scientifically. The problem is, you're making a philosophical argument against religion not a scientific one. Probabilistic solutions don't sense fo
176.
by eeperson 13y ago
I agree that for many people belief in a particular religion can bring in a bunch of associated dogma that is at odds with science. My point is that it doesn't have to. Dismissing all religions just because some people do feel that w
177.
by eeperson 13y ago
Wait, how does probability factor in to this. What is meaning of a 30% valid argument in this context? If you can't prove something, it doesn't mean that the answer is probabilistic. I'm not interested in if any particular
178.
by eeperson 13y ago
I feel like you are conflating two thing, religious belief and disbelief of scientific results. There is no reason that these need to be tied together. Of course science conflicts with the latter, but it says nothing about the former. Thin
179.
by eeperson 13y ago
You seem to imply the religious belief is inherently contradicted by evidence. What evidence do you feel contradicts all religions? For example, if a have a religion that only contains a single belief, that the universe is created by a cons
180.
by eeperson 13y ago
I agree completely with your first two paragraphs. I'll even buy the first sentence of your last paragraph. However, I fail to see why religion inherently conflicts with science. It is in no way clear that the scientific method can

More ›