pwm

15 ms·

91.
by pwm 6y ago
Please don't, it would 100% swallow me after all these years of not playing computer games :) I loved Heroes 3.
92.
by pwm 6y ago
Sorry, I thought you were making a point I did not get citing him in comparison with a haskell project. Apologies, I misunderstood.
93.
by pwm 6y ago
At work we're building a novel DSL and its ecosystem for a specific industry. Not sure if you consider that a bridge or not, the naive part of me likes to think it's akin to one but maybe i'm deluding myself. Of course we cou
94.
by pwm 6y ago
> We could compare John Wiegley’s ledger (C++) to the similar hledger (Haskell) I'm confused. Do you know he is a prolific Haskeller and maintains many libs?
95.
by pwm 6y ago
> Everyone got a ton of identity, equality, and proof-based stuff in math classes. Sure and some people like it some hate it (according to western popular culture most people hate it). Also even if someone loves doing school algebra if n
96.
by pwm 6y ago
People put energy into what's most useful for them and I don't think they should be blamed for this. I'm sure I'm biased but Lens and Parseq (and its successors) are both amazing libraries solving real problems in a powe
97.
by pwm 6y ago
OP was complaining about having to understand Functors, Monoids, etc... like they are nuisances in the way of writing real code. In response 6gvONxR4sf7o and I were saying that programmers really ought to be taught these incredibly useful a
98.
by pwm 6y ago
It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem and pretty much what the author of the article is talking about as well. You need people's time and energy to improve the status quo and getting people's attention takes ... people&#x27
99.
by pwm 6y ago
Why not both? They are not mutually exclusive and they both would advance the status quo.
100.
by pwm 6y ago
The thing is that, at least in my experience, "feels readable" is indeed emotional territory. More specifically people relate favourably to things they are comfortable with and most programmers are comfortable with ALGOL/C sy
101.
by pwm 6y ago
I completely agree with you which is why i’m replying that you should read those 2 models (S2F and S2FX). Its anonymous author says the same thing as you but goes a step further trying to meaningfully quantify it. They are honest about the
102.
JSON Parsing from Scratch in Haskell(abhinavsarkar.net)
6 points by pwm 6y ago|0 comments
103.
by pwm 7y ago
From my experience the key to becoming comfortable writing "real" apps in Haskell, or any language for that matter, is to just do it and keep at it. The easiest path, and the one I chose, is to do it full time as your day job. Whe
104.
by pwm 7y ago
There are no such thing as a CRUD app and every app is a CRUD app.
105.
by pwm 7y ago
My advice is favour places with engineers who both have the knowhow and the power to make decisions based on cost/benefit analysis. There is no right or wrong without context. Beware of places where engineering is driven by hype and&#x
106.
by pwm 7y ago
I don't really watch that much youtube but now that my son watches some cartoons on it I've subscribed to premium so he doesn't see any ads. I think it's ok to pay for youtube as it arguably provides a useful service. I
107.
by pwm 7y ago
It’s even more help in larger projects :) The dividends of type-checher aid refactoring really start paying off once the project is above a a certain size/age.
108.
by pwm 7y ago
I don’t agree with readibility (there are pros and cons, ie. terser code vs. implicit types) but, at least in Haskell, it improves usability by inferring the most generic type to your expression.
109.
by pwm 7y ago
Recent ghcide can do it now as well as https://github.com/mpickering/apply-refact for hlint
110.
by pwm 7y ago
> However, I’d hardly describe it as “just”, it’s a fairly interesting idea. I'd argue that it's an absolutely amazing idea however this idea has been brought into CS 31 years ago and utilised heavily ever since, so an article
111.
by pwm 7y ago
I might be missing something but from a quick skim did he just reinvent (a specific instance of) monads?
112.
by pwm 7y ago
Problem in the sense that most typed languages don't have a sufficiently powerful/expressive type system.
113.
by pwm 7y ago
Exactly. The only problem is that you need a language with a sufficiently powerful type system that can express both phantom and existential types.
114.
by pwm 7y ago
Sure. Math based abstractions are non-leaky. This is one of the main thing FP people rave about. Eg. map works without bias on all functors regardless whether the concrete thing is a list or a tree or an IO action, etc...
115.
by pwm 7y ago
https://www.instagram.com/midtownuniform/
116.
by pwm 7y ago
Haha same! :) Very interesting how common this experience seems to be.
117.
by pwm 7y ago
What are the arguments against FP for IO? In my opinion when working with IO in Haskell the explicit tagging and quarantining of IO is super valuable. There is a clear, compiler enforced demarcation so you know when to be careful not to lau
118.
by pwm 7y ago
Yup, I got the exact same reply. There is hope after all.
119.
by pwm 7y ago
I find it rather disrespectful to summarise a 20 years old, very successful and at the time truly revolutionary tech like QuickCheck with a simple “this is a bad idea”. If you stand on the shoulder of giants at least pay some respect.
120.
by pwm 7y ago
Agreed re conflating. I predominantly work from home, out of a custom built office in the corner of my garden. I tend to get up early and spend a few hours goofing around with the family before starting work. I take short breaks throughout

More ›