pka

15 ms·

91.
by pka 9y ago
Check out Purescript [0]. I've used it in production. [0] http://www.purescript.org
92.
The need for AI-friendly designs(medium.com)
1 points by pka 9y ago|0 comments
93.
by pka 9y ago
> cloning the entire structure for every applied function sounds like it will be slow? is that not what you will have to do in practice? In short, no - as an example, when an element is added to an immutable map, a big part of the newly
94.
by pka 9y ago
It's indeed very interesting! What I meant is that it might be simpler to just have pure functions operating on immutable data structures, which you could then compose in whichever you want. I.e. you could have a function collapse-vert
95.
by pka 9y ago
So if I'm understanding this correctly, you are generating a data structure describing geometry manipulations which can then be applied to a distinct geometry "instance?" If so, isn't this just a free monad? Also, what a
96.
by pka 9y ago
Then every CPU instruction is just (Universe -> Universe) :D
97.
Show HN: Leerraum.js – A PDF typesetting library with hyphenated line breaking(github.com)
5 points by pka 9y ago|0 comments
98.
by pka 9y ago
For the curious, [0]. [0] https://github.com/zrho/purescript-optic-ui
99.
by pka 9y ago
Ha, I guess this must be some kind of selective blindness then :) I've seen myThreadId many times, it makes perfect sense, and yet, whenever I've had to grab the spawned thread id I've always reached for mfix... Well, in this
100.
by pka 9y ago
Here's a practical application of mfix: mfix $ \threadId -> forkIO $ do -- computation in forked thread forkIO creates a new thread and returns its thread id. However, in order to access the returned thread id inside
101.
by pka 9y ago
https://www.haskell.org/hoogle :)
102.
by pka 10y ago
I'd be interested in continuing this discussion via mail. You don't have a public mail in your profile, so here's mine if you are too: p.kamenarsky@gmail.com
103.
by pka 10y ago
> You can create an object with the right members and pass it in to a function expecting an interface without even explicitly identifying it as "implementing" the interface. Row polymorphism is indeed very useful. Purescript (a
104.
by pka 10y ago
> For the entire app? You'd end up with a "god object" that would make the app unmaintainable. OO gives you compartmentalization that you don't get with FP. Well, not quite; take a look at the Elm architecture [0]. It
105.
by pka 10y ago
To my very limited understanding, no. Basic example, puring cream into a cup of coffee. At first low entropy, low complexity (cream at top, coffee at bottom). Then higher entropy, high complexity (cream and coffee mix according to laws of p
106.
by pka 10y ago
I think the point still stands: FP is different. None of the things you listed are particularly hard in an FP context. Classes/traits and parametric polymorphism will allow you to do these things just fine (Haskell code): class R
107.
by pka 10y ago
Inheritance is orthogonal to that. I.e. Erlang, an (impure) functional language without inheritance was literally built for that sort of thing.
108.
by pka 10y ago
Maintaining state was just one example. See my other comment [0] for others. Regardless, you can't maintain state with closures in a pure language. You could close over some local "variable", but that variable would be immuta
109.
by pka 10y ago
But OOP without inheritance is what FP gives you anyway: data Address = Address { city :: String , street :: String } data Person = Person { name :: String , address :: Address } My gen
110.
by pka 10y ago
Compare again: bind(StatefulFunction<a>, a => StatefulFunction<b>) => StatefulFunction<b> flatMap(List<a>, a => List<b>) => List<b> Look at the structure. Don't pay attention
111.
by pka 10y ago
Oh, but you can have mutable state in different parts of a program even in a pure FP language (without having to jump through any hoops, it's right there and pretty easy to use), although a processor or signal simulator may benefit fro
112.
by pka 10y ago
Genuinely curious, when would OOP (as opposed to FP) be better suited to a problem domain in your opinion?
113.
by pka 10y ago
Just to expand a little bit upon the sibling comment. Let's say you need a function that maintains internal state. Now, in non-pure languages, you could that by simply referring to some global variable, but let's agree that's
114.
by pka 10y ago
There's also purerl [0], an Erlang backend for PureScript. Would be cool if the two projects could join forces. [0] - https://github.com/purerl/purescript
115.
by pka 10y ago
That's intersting. If the universe could be simulated, you could, in theory, run that simulation on a (very large) piece of paper by hand. Running the simulation would then be equivalent to calculating some numbers and writing them dow
116.
by pka 10y ago
> There is one thing in Go, that I haven't met anywhere else. I can really understand any codebase I stumble upon in a matter of seconds. Care to elaborate a bit more? I understand that when you see for(...) { b[i] = f(a[i]); } then
117.
by pka 10y ago
I'm not promoting Rust, nor have I actually written anything in it. I do think though it's a step in the right direction. > But you don't get that effect by ramming it down other people's throats, you get that effect
118.
by pka 10y ago
There will always be software bugs. What I'm trying to say is that people should be made liable for avoidable bugs due to incompetence or ill-placed personal preferences ("Real programmers write in C!11"). There are times w
119.
by pka 10y ago
It doesn't make economic sense because VMWare and Microsoft don't have to pay out of pocket if a box in a datacenter is compromised and data is leaked because of bugs in their VMs and kernels that are only possible because of C. T
120.
by pka 10y ago
That is definitely why we need to stop using C. It's beyond ridiculous.

More ›