h91wka

15 ms·

91.
by h91wka 7y ago
I still find this format useful. Suppose your docstrings are scattered across the code base or some sort of data model, and you need to assemble them into large document. XML-based formats will work reliably. pandoc does decent job of trans
92.
by h91wka 7y ago
Gosh, Rust evangelists did a really good job brainwashing the community. Take a look at big Rust projects that do anything useful, like Tokyo. You'll find dozens of unsafe blocks everywhere, so much for static analysis. True, in the mo
93.
by h91wka 7y ago
Sorry, but by and large that's "red goes faster" type of reasoning.
94.
by h91wka 7y ago
> I also tend to believe Docker makes little sense, where OTP releases are the alternative. Docker makes a lot of sense, actually, because it allows you to run integration tests easily and ship Erlang releases in the same way as everythi
95.
by h91wka 7y ago
> The difference is metamath checks its 'cache' in to version control. As I said in the initial post, there is an entire world of difference between checking the proof term and, well, proving. Coq can dump proof terms that can
96.
by h91wka 7y ago
> the slowest parts of my work were my typing My rule of thumb says: if fingers are the bottleneck, then your programming language is not powerful enough (too verbose). Working with higher level abstractions is good for health: brain doe
97.
by h91wka 7y ago
> The 25 minute value is only the time to verify a single Coq proof. Logically it is a singe proof, but technically it consists of quite a few theorems and lemmas, so this is not a valid comparison. Also proofs in Coq are typically struc
98.
by h91wka 7y ago
> Most verification systems work in terms of hours or days. What kind of verification does usually take hours? Just checked how long it takes to verify Raft using Coq and Verdi (pretty sizeable proof), and complete pipeline takes around
99.
by h91wka 7y ago
Could you elaborate? I don't follow your reasoning here.
100.
by h91wka 7y ago
> but what's the alternative Making phone and e-mail optional, and being a tier-1 identity. That's what Matrix does.
101.
by h91wka 7y ago
> Lifetimes aren't a worse version of GC, just like static typing isn't a worse version of dynamic typing. They're different trade-offs. This is a completely bogus comparison. First, static typing is mostly about finding b
102.
by h91wka 7y ago
Small advice: if you are lucky enough to work with FOSS, just read the source code. Most of SO questions can be answered either by looking at concrete implementation details or by skimming through the code to get general concept. It gives m
103.
Trace-Based Testing in Erlang(blog.erlang.moe)
3 points by h91wka 7y ago|0 comments
104.
by h91wka 7y ago
Even if your app is 100% bug free and fault-tolerant, sometimes an external system feeds it invalid data and you need to figure out how to contain and revert the damage. That was my last on-call involving reading a lot of code under time pr
105.
by h91wka 7y ago
unsafePerformIO will work. But again, why bother with side effect isolation, if you need to break it to do trivial stuff.
106.
by h91wka 7y ago
Of course you can sneak in Debug.Trace everywhere if you don't compile with -XSafe. But by doing this you basically break your own rules.
107.
by h91wka 7y ago
Ok, I won't argue with that. If you don't work with mission critical systems -- sure, #1 doesn't apply to you. Play with any language you like.
108.
by h91wka 7y ago
You write bug-free code? You verify correctness of distributed and concurrent code on type level? What approach do you use: session types, TLA, separation logic? Sounds super cool, that's some seriously bleeding edge stuff! Does your t
109.
by h91wka 7y ago
Seems like someone never solved a complex problem.
110.
by h91wka 7y ago
> This being said, Haskell does have something in it that encourages one to design a ballistic algebra that runs in the type system before even pointing a gun at one's foot. Haskell is not even a total language, so type system doesn
111.
by h91wka 7y ago
Obviously, I was talking about the situation when it escalated to that person. And if you are going to claim that you know exactly how your code works after a month, then I call bs on that. Not to mention that 1) people leave companies some
112.
by h91wka 7y ago
Why would I need to refactor anything in this situation in the first place?
113.
by h91wka 7y ago
What links do you need? If you know anything at all about the Haskell ecosystem, you already know where to find all these papers/sites/presentations about arrows, pipes, lenses and what not.
114.
by h91wka 7y ago
> problems with technical leadership I've never been lucky enough to get a full-time Haskell job (nor did I try), so my experience is based on single-man development & prototyping using the existing stuff found on Hackage. I pre
115.
by h91wka 7y ago
How do you deal with #4?
116.
by h91wka 7y ago
All the evidence is out there in Hackage. I backed up my points with some argumentation at least, and you dismissed it based on personal experience that we have no way of verifying. So, not changing my mind yet.
117.
by h91wka 7y ago
Haskell is a beautiful research language. Its usecase is to supply subjects for PhDs and MScs, which it fulfills perfectly. Also it's extremely fun to learn and play with. I would never bring it to the production though, reasons being:
118.
by h91wka 7y ago
Where else do you get line numbers in stack traces by default?
119.
by h91wka 7y ago
1) I would just write DeductCreditInRatingGroup andalso log("blah") 2) Let it crash attitude is often misinterpreted. It means your system should be fault-tolerant in general, so you can focus on the happy case instead of
120.
by h91wka 7y ago
What I mean is that if you post that person X did Y on HN (or elsewhere), you attach links that prove this fact. In other words, [citation needed]

More ›