instig007

11 ms·

91.
by instig007 1y ago
But structural typing that allows you defining anonymous record types is orthogonal to colocation of types and bindings. You're effectively saying that you're proposing a type system that supports structural types, syntax and colo
92.
by instig007 1y ago
> doesn't let you colocate the types with the leaves of the binding form Can you elaborate on the effective difference between colocations in your example and this: transport Kwargs {person = Person{name = who, ..}, options = Op
93.
by instig007 1y ago
To address the example towards the end of your post, if you want patterns + struct binding at the same time, prefix patterns with `bindName@`, for instance: transport myTuple@(start, end) foo kwargs@(Kwargs { person = Person
94.
by instig007 1y ago
Here's the sample you can play with (interactive: https://play.haskell.org/saved/TWBEYFzH ): {-# LANGUAGE RecordWildCards #-} main = transport ("2025-09-05T09:00:00Z", "2025-09-05T1
95.
by instig007 1y ago
You can do most of it in default Haskell syntax, plus `RecordWildCards`: https://ghc.gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/doc/users_guide/exts/reco...
96.
by instig007 1y ago
> Ah you are just trying to gaslight me. pytype doesn't do static bounds checking. It does static type checking from _annotations_ that live _outside_ the type system of the language. Have you forgotten that you began to argue that
97.
by instig007 1y ago
> What you have written is not a serious proposal in terms of a working way to extend Protocol Buffers to allow repeated oneofs. I didn't intend to propose a solution for protobuf specifically, I explained why the author of the subj
98.
by instig007 1y ago
> Throwing a theorem-prover at the problem, unaided by developer hints, is not realistic in a large codebase. Please, Kenton, don't move your goalpost. Who said about "unaided"? Annotations, whether they come directly from
99.
by instig007 1y ago
Ok, "some of the most senior engineers ever to work at Google" don't seem to know that static bounds checking don't require dependent types: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45150008 > You don&#x2
100.
by instig007 1y ago
> This was my experience in Google Search infrastructure circa 2005-2010 [...] > Reports from other large teams at google > teach everyone how that works, etc. > Or we could just tell people to wrap the thing in a `message` It r
101.
by instig007 1y ago
> Still wish someone would figure out a working version of dependent types for real-world use, mainly so we could prove array bounds-safety without runtime checks. Hi Kenton, I'm not sure what kind of PL theory you studied in colleg
102.
by instig007 1y ago
> What you describe using many completely unnecessary mathematical terms Unnecessary for you, surely. > Believe it or not, but in the software industry, nobody is defining a new “version number” with “strictly defined algebra” when th
103.
by instig007 1y ago
> Real-world practice has also shown that quite often, fields that originally seemed to be "required" turn out to be optional over time how often? as practiced by who, and where? > 2. You actually do not want a oneof field t
104.
by instig007 1y ago
> is NOT the same scenario where you get to design your types once and then EVERYTHING that ever touches those types is forced through a type checker. the author never claimed the types had to be designed only once, he claimed that schem
105.
by instig007 1y ago
> Let's say you want to add a new required field, if your system receives messages from clients some clients may be sending you old data without the field and now the parse step fails because it detects a missing field. A parser has
106.
by instig007 1y ago
Yeah, let's pretend that type algebra doesn't exist, and even if it does exist then it's not useful and definitely isn't practical in data protocols. Let's believe that the authors of protobuf considered everything,
107.
by instig007 1y ago
> If you see some statements like below on the serialization topic: > Make all fields in a message required. This makes messages product types. > Then it is fair to raise eyebrows on the author's expertise. It's fair to r
108.
by instig007 1y ago
> We going to pretend the crusades didn't happen? > Christian and Muslim states had been in conflict since the establishment of Islam in the 7th century. In the span of approximately 120 years after the death of the Islamic proph
109.
by instig007 1y ago
> And time spent on designing and writing type safe code is almost equivalent to time spent writing tests that serve as an end-to-end contract. Do you write tests for every third-party function that interacts with your code, so that it n
110.
by instig007 1y ago
> & don't let dict[str, Any] pass review good luck with justifying that before your manager (reacting to complaints within your team, claiming you being a bottleneck).
111.
by instig007 1y ago
Being in line with the bad original design decision is another bad design decision, python developers should have a courage to admit these instances to benefit from better decisions in new peps. They didn't do it with pattern matching
112.
by instig007 1y ago
> This would have been a fair point had Scala 3 supported Python's packages It supports the entirety of JDK-compatible packages and FFI/JNI bindings, which is a fair point of the comparison. Not sure why you have to frame it ar
113.
by instig007 1y ago
Scala 3: exists, https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/book/scala-features.html Developers: mypy, pyright, pyrefly, ty, pypy, nogil, faster-python, sub-interpreters, free-threading, asyncio, ...
114.
by instig007 1y ago
> Python with strict type checking and its huge stdlib is my favourite scripting language now. It's time to try Scala 3 with Java libs' inbound interop: https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/book/scala-fe
115.
by instig007 1y ago
> I prefer list/set/dict comprehensions any day. It's more general, doesn't require to know a myriad of different methods It's the opposite, your knowledge of the standard set of folding algorithms (maps, filters
116.
by instig007 1y ago
> I'd rather hire someone [...] than someone who can do the work manually without assistance or fizz buzz on a whiteboard and the reason for you to do that would be to punish the remaining bits of competence in the name of "th
117.
by instig007 1y ago
> it always seemed a bit backward to me for the importer to ask for lazy import, especially if you make it an import keyword rather than a Python flag Exactly this. There must be zero side effects at module import time, not just for loa
118.
by instig007 1y ago
> Sometimes it will be worth it to have the non-programmer write it in Python and then do Herculean things in the background to make it fast enough. Nim exists, Crystal exists
119.
by instig007 1y ago
If only compiled languages with dead code elimination existed...
120.
by instig007 1y ago
> but seems to occasionally lambast people about Haskell If you are to add community notes to my comments, at least add the part that clarifies that I only lambast incompetence and lies. > risking giving the Haskell community a bad na

More ›