rs86

10 ms·

61.
by rs86 8y ago
Type checking is much more than that. It is not the same as throwing exceptions when types don't match; it is about proving that a type checked program will never produce type errors.
62.
by rs86 8y ago
Agree that haskell sometimes is not that practical but it does make you a better programmer.
63.
Ask HN: Android app to read source code on GitHub?
2 points by rs86 8y ago|1 comments
64.
by rs86 8y ago
I have the same feeling. It is a very powerful and interesting language from my anecdotal experience, but I also feel it gives too much options to use
65.
by rs86 8y ago
The design on the product screenshot is too complex. Why that fat curvy font on the page title? We need more brutalism
66.
by rs86 8y ago
Fantastic stuff!!!
67.
by rs86 8y ago
The PR stink is strong with this one.
68.
by rs86 8y ago
Yep, it's hard to grasp for engineers, this kind of thing requires training in formal logics to get started with. I think things will not make much sense until one gets that the type system can be a formal system equivalent to logic
69.
by rs86 8y ago
No, it's about proving something about your program. Types are theorems about programs. If a compiler type checks (well if it is a sound type system) that your function returns an non-zero integer, it proves that it can only return non
70.
by rs86 8y ago
Recursion is not defined in terms of the execution of the program (such as storing data on the call stack). For example you can have stack less languages with recursion.
71.
by rs86 8y ago
Space complexity will depend on the computational model you choose.
72.
by rs86 8y ago
Nice article but you can't write the Y-combinator in Haskell (or in simply typed lambda calculus). You can write it in the untyped lambda calculus. "y = \f -> (\x -> f (x x)) (\x -> f (x x))" will fail to type check
73.
by rs86 8y ago
no, it's more like passing a continuation in this case (which is the function itself). but the function is not defined in terms of itself.
74.
by rs86 8y ago
Let's add all the work on finding decision procedures for all of mathematics to that list
75.
by rs86 8y ago
Oh yeah. They should bring way more profit home....
76.
by rs86 8y ago
I think the OP just meant that you can get a lot done with databases queries and a bit of automation. There's no need to call that ML/AI.
77.
by rs86 8y ago
This could benefit greatly from specifying what operations are available for each structure.
78.
by rs86 8y ago
Easy to prove termination and analyse recursion in general via structural induction.
79.
by rs86 8y ago
Yes, opam is a mess to work with.
80.
by rs86 8y ago
Zero informative content. Hey!
81.
by rs86 8y ago
Ltu, lambda the ultimate
82.
by rs86 8y ago
Quantum computing is expressible as linear transformations of qubit superpositions
83.
by rs86 8y ago
My sentiments exactly. I see how the author felt thrilled by his discovery. But hn is getting less interesting each month. Otoh lobsters and Lbda the ultimate keep going strong.
84.
by rs86 8y ago
100b is insane. That should price a basically risk free security giving 1b profits/yr
85.
by rs86 8y ago
Gotta be careful with estimates, a random analyst says it's worth 100b and a research firm says it's going to reach so many users in a few years, but zero attention is paid to what assumptions underlie those estimates; publicly av
86.
by rs86 8y ago
Object databases are hardly forgotten
87.
by rs86 8y ago
What would be interesting is to have a subset with managed side effects and purity elixir i.e. something like Elm does at the frontend, the Elm experience is amazing and what annoys me in erlang is having too much effects around
88.
by rs86 8y ago
Funny that python is discovering types. All of this is common sense to real developers that can code on haskell.
89.
Valuing ICOs from fundamentals – ideas?
3 points by rs86 8y ago|4 comments
90.
by rs86 8y ago
Jeez science is dead, calling anecdotal evidence a law as in a law of physics is ridiculous PR

More ›