mlitchard

8 ms·

1. 31.▲
   by mlitchard 11y ago

   I do like doing these things for fun. Unfortunately they restrict language choice. And the languages available, while useful, aren't fun. In other words, "Where the Haskell at?"
2. 32.▲
   by mlitchard 11y ago

   Make the hacking tools written in atari 2600 pac-man and you have got yourself a gen-x comedy.
3. 33.▲
   Monoids. Themes and Variations (2012) [pdf](cis.upenn.edu)

   3 points by mlitchard 11y ago|0 comments
4. 34.▲
   by mlitchard 11y ago

   The other thing they don't understand is the words agile and proactive are signalling me that they are a bobblehead.
5. 35.▲
   Lightweight Dependent-type Programming (2008)(okmij.org)

   23 points by mlitchard 11y ago|0 comments
6. 36.▲
   Propositions as Types [pdf](homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk)

   7 points by mlitchard 11y ago|0 comments
7. 37.▲
   by mlitchard 11y ago

   In that case, check out Reactive-Banana, after learning some Haskell.
8. 38.▲
   by mlitchard 11y ago

   It's not a problem for you, but it's a problem generally. That's why so many people are working to solve it.
9. 39.▲
   by mlitchard 11y ago

   Here's the relationship. How can you guarantee your low-level code is correct? Here's one way. You have a language like Idris create a DSL that targets the machine you want. You can model what the set of correct programs in your d
10. 40.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    You already have a VR setup. Just get in the tank!
11. 41.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    Thanks for the discussion link.
12. 42.▲
    Benjamin Pierce – Software Foundations(youtube.com)

    6 points by mlitchard 11y ago|2 comments
13. 43.▲
    Denotational Design with Type Class Morphisms (2009) [pdf](conal.net)

    7 points by mlitchard 11y ago|0 comments
14. 44.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    I shall stick with fay https://github.com/faylang/fay/wiki and the like.
15. 45.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    I found this useful when trying to communicate with OOP programmers.
16. 46.▲
    How enterprises use functional languages, and why they don’t [pdf](homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk)

    8 points by mlitchard 11y ago|1 comments
17. 47.▲
    No One Expects the Scott Induction (2010)(blog.ezyang.com)

    3 points by mlitchard 11y ago|0 comments
18. 48.▲
    Design Patterns in Haskell(blog.ezyang.com)

    16 points by mlitchard 11y ago|1 comments
19. 49.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    10,000 lines of bubblegum and chicken wire is not fun. At all.
20. 50.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    "It is much easier to quickly prototype or experiment in a dynamic language." I disagree. I can say what I mean with types, and if I didn't mean what I said, refactoring is a breeze. "You don't have to stop and figu
21. 51.▲
    Dynamic Languages Are Static Languages (2011)(existentialtype.wordpress.com)

    23 points by mlitchard 11y ago|66 comments
22. 52.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    Twist ending - Selling mailing lists is the actual business.
23. 53.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    Exactly. Given the choice between inventing the future and writing the next myface-for-hamsters, which would you do?
24. 54.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    Clown car + yakkity sax
25. 55.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    Food for thought David, thanks!
26. 56.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    I feel like this rush to adopt functional language features in non-functional languages is like deciding to shoehorn a jet engine onto your hot-air balloon. Yes, it can be done but ... see PLT_HULK.
27. 57.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    Yeah there's a horrorshow idea to contemplate. Humanity is the Elder Race. Yikes!
28. 58.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    That's amazing. The Raspberry Pi Foundation is doing good work.
29. 59.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    I often wondered that too. Here's something you may find useful. I know I did. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhuHCtR3xq8
30. 60.▲
    by mlitchard 11y ago

    I'm a bear of very little brain, could you explain the recursive properties of this sentence? I don't see them.