pka

34 ms·

1. 271.▲
   by pka 11y ago

   Pointer arithmetic is really not that hard. It's not something worthy to be proud of.
2. 272.▲
   by pka 11y ago

   The need for type coercion is a very good indicator of a bad design. Haskell just forces you to deal with it right now instead of never.
3. 273.▲
   by pka 11y ago

   So what is an easy algorithm then? Keep in mind, "newest update wins" doesn't even begin to cover all possible use cases.
4. 274.▲
   by pka 11y ago

   First google result: https://wiki.haskell.org/Haskell_in_industry You'll probably recognize some companies, such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft.
5. 275.▲
   by pka 11y ago

   Thanks, that's a cool approach! I'm wondering if a free monad approach would have any advantages over this.
6. 276.▲
   by pka 11y ago

   Could you elaborate more or point to some sample code?
7. 277.▲
   by pka 11y ago

   Looks great, thanks!
8. 278.▲
   by pka 11y ago

   True. Damn progress :(
9. 279.▲
   by pka 11y ago

   Oh, yeah - something like QuickCheck [0] is great! There are Java and C++ implementations as well, though I haven't tried them. Definitely a nice alternative to traditional unit testing whenever possible. I don't know how well it
10. 280.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    Well, this is basically what types are :)
11. 281.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    Yes, a type system is very much going to help you, even if you have that skill of "capturing implicit state". Because then a function you call, written by somebody else without that skill, may rely on global state in unexpected wa
12. 282.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    In addition to what the others said, I'd much rather prefer good static typing (i.e. Haskell). Especially in the prototyping phase, I do a lot of iterating and refactoring - and I mean A LOT, because I've found that this is the be
13. 283.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    Can't break be simulated by something like MaybeT? And forWithBreakM :: [a] -> (a -> m (Maybe b)) -> m [b] that stops when f yields Nothing? (isn't this actually sequence . forM?)
14. 284.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    I want to respond to one point specifically: `Private ecosystem — if all your code is in X, you have potentially tons of reusable modules as part of your own stack.` Never ever in my OOP days have I been able to reuse a non-trivial function
15. 285.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    More likely, your "type B" programmer will build a half-assed MVP with 20% of the initial features that will break every 5 seconds and thus the "million dollars paying startup" will lose their customers to the saner comp
16. 286.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    I agree - I really had to deobfuscate / parse the signature first before even being able to start comprehending what it is about. Not saying that there are no monster type signatures in Haskell (just recovering from one such instance i
17. 287.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    I thought "Extension" in this example is a Monoid. So maybe foldContramap? :)
18. 288.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    Is this foldMap :: Monoid m => (a -> m) -> t a -> m ?
19. 289.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    Well, you can write if 5 < x < 6 for one! Sorry for the sarcasm, but the author hasn't given a single reason beyond some trivial (and inconsequential, imo) syntactic shortcuts and his personal preference for the language.
20. 290.▲
    PureScript for the Haskeller(arow.info)

    2 points by pka 11y ago|0 comments
21. 291.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    Another alternative would be to use a language without runtime exceptions, like Elm or PureScript.
22. 292.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    What's cool about monads is that the computation (assembly code in this particular case) is just a plain old value. So if you have a fragment like this: factorial :: Int64 -> X86 () factorial n = do mov rcx (I n)
23. 293.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    Very interesting, thanks!
24. 294.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    I moved from Elm to PureScript 1 month ago, and I don't regret it. Here's my earlier explanation why [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10727009
25. 295.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    If you already know the website. If you don't care about C++ or this guy's blog you will have wasted your time.
26. 296.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    How did you handle refactorings? Like, changing userAddress's "type" from Address to Maybe Address? This is what scares me the most in Clojure and all other dynamic languages - that early on in the project, I'd make an u
27. 297.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    One more thing that just made my life easier: Purescript recently got generic deriving [0], which means that one can derive Eq, Ord, JSON etc instances easily now! [0] https://github.com/purescript/purescript-generics
28. 298.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    Evan Czaplicki was actually hired by Prezi to work exclusively on Elm, so the project has industry backing.
29. 299.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    I've had a similar experience. I was ok with it though, because the pure data -> DOM nature of Elm's architecture was better than anything else. Until I found PureScript. Especially purescript-halogen [0], which is basically ho
30. 300.▲
    by pka 11y ago

    While I agree - this particular alternative is worse - it's not the only alternative. I was talking about more expressive type systems, not less.