nousernamesleft

12 ms·

61.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
getExecutablePath
62.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
No, I would expect a beginner to use getProgName. I would also expect anyone else to use getProgName also.
63.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
Because haskell has such a library (a few actually) and ocaml does not. So in ocaml you either have to give up safety, or write a bunch of verbose boilerplate. There's no reason someone couldn't write a lens library for ocaml of
64.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
Yes, it is a strawman. Strictness annotations are not unidiomatic any more than using laziness is in ocaml. The ocaml code is effectively using unsafePerformIO all over, ocaml doesn't offer the safety you are complaining that the has
65.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
You could just look at the code instead of making up a strawman to try to dismiss the only evidence presented. Poor evidence > no evidence.
66.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
I suspect the difference of opinion is due to a different understanding of what a functional style is. Python does not have tail call elimination. You literally can not write lots of normal functional programs in python. Python doesn&#x2
67.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
>Not before writing his initial benchmarks Yes, he did. Try talking to him. >That measures ridiculous highly tuned implementations of the benchmarks So, fast code. Which is what is at question. >It contains absolutely no evidence
68.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
>He did the same for OCaml and got faster code No he didn't. He took the time to learn ocaml. >Obviously you can write fast code in Haskell, but that is not the same as it being easy. The closest thing to evidence I can find sug
69.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
>The "internal, ambiguous type" matters when you try to actually invoke (show . read) on some String There is no internal ambiguous type. It is not a concrete type, it is a type variable. But it is inferred just fine. It i
70.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
Oops. So, I'm even more confused now. You know show. read is inferred just fine, and that means typeclasses break inference?
71.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
>I find it much easier Ok, but your anecodes + my anecdotes = still just anecdotes. To support the claim that it is easier to write fast code in ocaml, we need to find evidence. >Writing the equivalent Haskell code is much more work
72.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
Nope. Lenses aren't needed at all, they are just helpful. Lenses are just combined getter+setter that are composable. So you can use (lensA . lensB . lensC) to view, update or replace part of a data structure that is part of a dat
73.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
But both were fast. And if he had enabled optimizations like it was suggested, the difference would be smaller. And if he had used attoparsec instead of a regex it would have been easier, less error prone, and faster. He literally didn&#
74.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
No they don't. > :t read . show read . show :: (Read c, Show a) => a -> c
75.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
Having spent 6 years with ocaml, I can honestly say I both never wrote anything where ocaml offered a benefit haskell does not, and can not even think of such a program. You pose two questions, one of which is effectively irrelevant, and th
76.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
77.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
The plan 9 team do not consider it a feature. Hence it does not exist.
78.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
Typeclasses don't interfere with type inference. > :t (+ 5) (+ 5) :: Num a => a -> a
79.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
>It's a pretty old page. I'm not sure its content is still accurate Half of it never was as it is just "ocaml isn't lisp and I can't handle that".
80.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
Two reasons. First, they are both languages with useful type systems. There's not many languages in that group. Second, ocaml is a multiparadigm language for real, and with a focus of functional first. Python, ruby, perl, etc are pr
81.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
This isn't a shame, it does nothing. Plan 9 was already released under a BSD style license (one with an absurd amount of pointless legalese, but non-copyleft nonetheless). This is simply releasing it with additional restrictions so t
82.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
Correct. Just like unix. If something crashes, there is a serious problem. Restarting it blindly is typically going to do more harm than good (allowing the attacker who crashed it infinite chances to keep trying to exploit the bug rather
83.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
Where to even begin. First of all, plan 9 is already under a BSD style license, it always has been. They just also let people have it with extra restrictions now (the GPL) because RMS is a lunatic and insists that some licenses are not GP
84.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
Oh, it read as though you were giving them as an example of problems.
85.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
>More fundamentally they were centralized and Linus had experience from watching the BSDs and knew that a centralized version control was actually worse than none Watching another group from the outside is not experience. But what makes
86.
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
>Just remember the multiple WebKit debacles or the BSDs I don't know anything about webkits, but how are "the BSDs" relevant?