mookid11

5 ms·

1.
by mookid11 2y ago
you might like diffr ( https://github.com/mookid/diffr ) (disclaimer: my project)
2.
by mookid11 3y ago
Matija Pretnar about the eff programming language and mathematical foundations for Effect Handlers.
3.
Mathematics Guides Effect Handlers [video](youtube.com)
1 points by mookid11 3y ago|1 comments
4.
by mookid11 5y ago
I wrote diffr [0] for that purpose; it serves me well, especially if your team makes code with long lines. In my opinion, a simple approach that does NOT make any parsing is more efficient (what about bugs in your parser? code with syntax e
5.
by mookid11 6y ago
Sort of related: as I never made diff-highlight work correctly on Windows, I wrote diffr[0] which goes a little bit behond what diff-highlight does. [0]: https://github.com/mookid/diffr
6.
by mookid11 8y ago
The point is to share intermediate state of your data structure without headache. For instance, if you write an interpreter, representing variable bindings with a functional map allows to reason about scope super easily; when you change sco
7.
by mookid11 9y ago
> For example, you'd not get far in Rust without Result<>, Option<> or Future<> which are all make use of delayed resolution for their value. Certainly not for Result<> or Option<>.
8.
by mookid11 9y ago
It depends if you enjoy NullPointerExceptions.
9.
by mookid11 9y ago
Unless experienced, you have no clue how a piece of code will be parsed. With ocaml, where is very little ambiguity; and indentation tools can take care of proper formatting, you only need to break lines. And it can be pretty bad with haske
10.
by mookid11 9y ago
> Haskell has some nice things going for it. Its syntax is cleaner than OCaml's, for example. While I find the ocaml syntax very far from perfect, the whitespace sensitivity of Haskell makes it immediately worse. What a silly design
11.
by mookid11 9y ago
To allow IEEE compliant float with tagged pointers. However, note that floats are not boxed in the OCaml's arrays. Boxing floats is a pain because it makes the price of defining subroutines taking float arguments high.
12.
by mookid11 10y ago
Interesting how the author avoids to mention OCaml's (far from perfect, but still) object system.
13.
by mookid11 10y ago
I think this is the first time I see anyone like the OCaml syntax.
14.
by mookid11 10y ago
I think that you only need isearch + occur (M-s .), not ace-jump. I tried ace-jump and have it configured for months, I never use it. neither do I use swiper, because it is too slow to start. Also, don't forget C-M-{left, right, up, do
15.
by mookid11 10y ago
> Yes, but hardly anybody uses that part of the language. We tend to stick with modules and variations over them. You can have inheritance via polymorphic variants: see Garrigue's `Code reuse through polymorphic variants`.
16.
by mookid11 10y ago
You can use the ocaml toolchain (for instance: ocamllex and ocamlyacc) and stop writing ad hoc parsers.
17.
by mookid11 10y ago
I like: http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/oreilly-book Real world ocaml is not so complete, and light on subjects such as C interop.