nbouscal

33 ms·

301.
by nbouscal 13y ago
Because not everyone loves excessive verbosity.
302.
by nbouscal 13y ago
You're underselling working memory. Working memory is essential for almost everything productive that you do.
303.
by nbouscal 13y ago
Strictly speaking very little is needed . You can write everything in assembly if you'd like. Helpful, though? There's absolutely no question. Type classes like those you mentioned make programs more concise, more understandable*
304.
by nbouscal 13y ago
You have to learn what Monad and Functor are, but you do not by any means need to learn what a monad is, or what a functor is. To put it another way, you need to learn the Haskell type classes that have those names, but you do not need to l
305.
by nbouscal 13y ago
You noted a pattern in how programmers name types, and then complain that the naming of a type class doesn't conform to that pattern. Of course 4 isn't a Monoid, rather, Sum is a Monoid. As for IO, the best way to read it would
306.
by nbouscal 13y ago
I inadvertently focused this discussion too much on the duplicability aspect of the argument, when there are other factors at play as well. For example, if someone purchases a song and then plays it on speakers, and you are nearby and liste
307.
by nbouscal 13y ago
I didn't say that you were dense, I said that you were acting dense. I also didn't espouse any of the positions that you credited me with, rather I simply pointed out that this is a complex issue. You have acted throughout thi
308.
by nbouscal 13y ago
You seem to be acting intentionally dense. Surely you understand that the difference being discussed here pertains specifically to duplicable content, where the property involved is "intellectual property" and much more open to
309.
by nbouscal 13y ago
If you have a diagnosed sleep disorder, shouldn't you be getting advice from a doctor, rather than the internet? I think it was pretty clear that the commenter was giving advice to the majority of people who have not been diagnosed wit
310.
by nbouscal 13y ago
You gave the same link for the first two studies you mention. Also, it's pretty easy to detect the author's heavy bias against type systems just from a quick perusal of the first page. The methodology used is extremely questionabl
311.
by nbouscal 13y ago
I don't think I could disagree more. To your first point, Haskell is less complex than imperative languages. You get to functional by removing things from imperative: mutable state, side effects, et al. To your second point, case stu
312.
by nbouscal 13y ago
Learn You a Haskell is an excellent introductory text and I see no way in which it "expect[s] you to understand the syntax when you begin." It walks you through things very explicitly. Yes, IO is introduced late, but it is not nec
313.
by nbouscal 13y ago
Responsibility is not a binary property where any given individual is either responsible or not. There are varying degrees of responsibility. Obviously each step in your absurd slippery slope argument corresponds to a drastic decrease in th
314.
by nbouscal 13y ago
I was simplifying, and your simplification is more accurate, but neither simplification quite captures it. Both aspects play a role, with the amount the couple makes essentially scaling the benefit or detriment. If a couple makes the exact
315.
by nbouscal 13y ago
> Also interesting is that married people in the US of A experience a tax advantage when filing jointly It's not quite that simple. Filing jointly confers a tax advantage when the couple makes relatively little, but becomes neutral
316.
by nbouscal 13y ago
You are correct, and I'm just nitpicking, but I do think it's worth pointing out that in NYC the effective tax rate can get close to 50% even for relatively entry-level salaries (low six-figures). Federal, State, and Local incom
317.
by nbouscal 13y ago
One of the best ways to prevent your spending from getting away from you is to set up automatic saving. Most banks and credit unions will let you set up automatic monthly transactions to put some amount into a savings account without you ha
318.
by nbouscal 13y ago
> This piece should have to be written. I'm guessing you meant "shouldn't" there?
319.
by nbouscal 13y ago
Seriously? I'm directly quoting you in a post that is still visible, and you're denying it? Again, the quote that I originally replied to: "Without side effects you couldn't do anything." > Ok, you are very confu
320.
by nbouscal 13y ago
> No, of course you can not. How do you see the result? That requires a side effect of some kind. The result is whether or not the program type-checks. Your original claim was, again, that "without side effects you can't do any
321.
by nbouscal 13y ago
Your claim was "Without side effects you couldn't do anything." I was rebutting that claim. Again, unless you want to claim that libraries "don't do anything." The more specific claim that you need side effects
322.
by nbouscal 13y ago
> This needs to be protected by applicants valuing their time. To me, this reads as "This needs to be protected by applicants changing their utility function." Applicants do value their time. Everyone values their time. They
323.
by nbouscal 13y ago
I agree that there is a point at which allowing the market to decide on fair compensation breaks down. Hence minimum wage and policies against discrimination, etc. I just don't see how one could possibly make an argument that this is t
324.
by nbouscal 13y ago
Yes, because you know what is best for all human beings. This line in the post was directed at you: > That’s like saying everyone would be fulfilled by getting married and having 2.5 kids. Not everyone has the same utility function.
325.
by nbouscal 13y ago
So you're saying that a library that has no side effects but performs a complicated data transformation "doesn't do anything"?
326.
by nbouscal 13y ago
> Without side effects you couldn't do anything. Not true. > Pure functional languages make side effects explicit, but it isn't about them being missing. True. I should have been more clear about that.
327.
by nbouscal 13y ago
> FP is all about passing functions as parameters into other functions. That's a common misconception. First-class functions and higher-order functions are definitely commonly used in functional programming, but they are not what ma
328.
by nbouscal 13y ago
The learning curve is not that steep. Compare it to learning vim or emacs, for example, and it's no contest. The learning curve is basically: 1) read Pro Git, 2) play with git for a little while. That's about it. If you can't
329.
by nbouscal 13y ago
You're completely right, I should have clarified that I was only talking about committed data. My mistake.
330.
by nbouscal 13y ago
It looks like your troubles came purely from not understanding the concept of fast-forward merges. I completely agree with you that the documentation does not make this as clear as it ought to. However, the standard book on git (Pro Git, av

More ›