rscho

20 ms·

1. 301.▲
   by rscho 2y ago

   Modern compiler implementation in ML by A. W. Appel There are (inferior) versions of the same in C and Java. I'd use them together with the ML version.
2. 302.▲
   by rscho 2y ago

   It's a compiler for the APL language, that generates GPU code. What's interesting about it is that it's also hosted on the GPU , and it also has a very original architecture representing trees as arrays of pointers.
3. 303.▲
   by rscho 2y ago

   I have. R is far less verbose and maps far better to data analysis. The Wolfram lang is far more expressive and powerful for symbolic computation. So basically, Wolfram for doing math Research, R for applied stats.
4. 304.▲
   by rscho 2y ago

   I'd strongly advise taking a page from J's book and allow rank specification for function application. Julia having ranks element and infinite is nice, but what about application row-by-row ? On on regular sub arrays?
5. 305.▲
   by rscho 2y ago

   I run emacs, so I messed around with paredit and friends. I can understand your pov as a professional coder, doing enough coding that you can really master the syntax of your language of choice. I code occasionally for scientific research,
6. 306.▲
   by rscho 2y ago

   > memory safety with Rust, powerful type system in Scala ... easy and seamless user-defined compiler extensions with lisp
7. 307.▲
   by rscho 2y ago

   Your notes indeed suggest that you've not been using structural editing. Aside from that, you could have tried to use `first` instead of `car`. It would've worked. And yes, there happens to be a pythonic version named `Rhombus`, w
8. 308.▲
   by rscho 2y ago

   People who complain about parentheses have never tried structural editing. Change my mind!
9. 309.▲
   by rscho 2y ago

   Please try one of the big Lisp/Scheme yourself instead of spreading uninformed opinions.
10. 310.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    Performance-wise I'll admit I don't really know. But I do know that performance is at least decent, in that it lets you experiment easily with pretty much any array problem. Your dynamic/static typing analogy is pretty much o
11. 311.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    J only is a data science language in the sense that its core is suited to dataset manipulation, but it's severely lacking in modelling librairies. If you're doing exotic stuff and you know exactly what you're doing, I can see
12. 312.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    I disagree. For the stuff I'm doing, I've been rewriting the same 1-screen program in different ways many times. J made that easy, R would make that much more tedious since I'd have >250 lines instead of 30. Of course if I
13. 313.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    I'm sorry but you really sound like you judge APLs from an outsider pov. For sure, it's not job security that's keeping APLs afloat, because APLs are very easy to learn. A pro programmer would never use K or any APL. But pro
14. 314.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    Are you a quant, or doing very specialized numerical things that aren't in libs on 2D datasets? Then 10X yes. If not, no. Everything else will be better
15. 315.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    I'm not switching anything. Just trying to add to the conversation. BTW, for simpler queries I have no doubt the benchmarks are correct. I anticipate it would not hold for more beefy queries.
16. 316.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    The language structure of APLs is far simpler than C. Basically, you learn a few dozen primitives and you're off to the races. That's part of what makes APLs appealing.
17. 317.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    You do actually spend hours to understand what's going on. Basically, the idea is that your implementation will be so short and condensed that you'll just rewrite from scratch to fix bugs.
18. 318.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    For using a heap of libs to compute something that has been done a thousand times? No. For writing a completely new data processing pipeline from scratch? Much, much faster! Array langs have decent performance, but that's not why they
19. 319.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    Oh, it's just racking millions of dollars from big bank users every year. Nothing a script-kiddy couldn't achieve...
20. 320.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    Try it or any other APL for 3 months. You will change your mind.
21. 321.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    K specializes in financial data, i.e. lists of 1d arrays. Other APLs, and J, are more high-dimensional math oriented and specialize in true multidimensional arrays.
22. 322.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    That's not the idea. In a sense, the Pandoc of K is K itself. I mean its designed for interactive, fast and terse scripting on financial data for quants. And it's incredibly good for that. So almost all substantial K is propriet
23. 323.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    Because: poor graduate students would contemplate suicide for having to gather hundreds of papers from just as many obscure blogs.
24. 324.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    You are not describing a systematic literature review. Systematic reviews are hell indeed, at least in non-STEM fields.
25. 325.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    Just occasionally? I get at least 3-4 of those daily! They've become seriously annoying, and confused senior professors around me often fall into the trap.
26. 326.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    Hijacking the thread: I'm looking to compute sciency stuff on a grid of truncated octahedrons, and rendering that to voxels. Does anyone know a good way to do that??
27. 327.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    As far as I understand it, no parallelism at all in Pharo itself.
28. 328.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    So they got scared and jumped the gun in an attempt to protect the Scala community?
29. 329.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    Racket/Chez Scheme can too :-)
30. 330.▲
    by rscho 2y ago

    The common sentiment is "if it's not used in DrRacket, you'll likely be on your own". That's more of a limitation due to the small community than a testament to the GUI framework quality itself, IMO.