sclv

7 ms·

1.
by sclv 3y ago
Indeed, as you note, a reinstallable base is a goal everyone wants. Its basically historical reasons and coupling of primitives (tied to the compiler innards) to nonprimitives which has caused this situation, but sufficient elbow grease sho
2.
by sclv 4y ago
I don't think any of this is impossible to change. There was just a Labor Notes conference this weekend where thousands of people pushing for more democratic and rank and file run unions showed up. And examples like the ALU show that g
3.
by sclv 4y ago
Yes, companies are not democracies. That's why we need unions! That's the only way to exercise our collective power to negotiate with the employer on more equal terms. When we negotiate individually we also say "here are the
4.
by sclv 8y ago
Holy moly that is not at all what that paper says! It specifically argues that certain equational properties of a given total language continue to hold in the total fragment of a given partial language. It is an embedding theorem combined w
5.
by sclv 8y ago
Your edit is starting to get it. If by the argument of the article x/y = cotton candy for all x,y, then probably the argument of the article isn't good. And the reason is precisely that division in a field is taken to be nothing b
6.
by sclv 8y ago
I know what he's doing. The problem is when you make it a different function (even by just extending it) then you change its equational properties. So equational properties that held over the whole domain of the function no longer hold
7.
by sclv 8y ago
The problem this and the other replies miss is that the standard definition of division is multiplication by the inverse. The entire argument rests on a notational slight of hand. The property that held before -- that _when defined_ divisio
8.
by sclv 8y ago
Right. So the multiplicative inverse property _breaks_! He just points out that it breaks, and thus you need to use a more complicated property instead. That doesn't mean that the property doesn't break.
9.
by sclv 10y ago
I think this list is not reflective of a general Haskell outlook. Its reflective of an outlook of people standing _outside_ Haskell (LC is historically a scala-heavy conference) and projecting onto it a certain sort of structure of expecta
10.
by sclv 10y ago
If you think reading X loc/min is the norm, and then hit a language where you read much slower, you might think "this is hard to read". But if you're reading the same density of _logic_ at the same speed, then that'
11.
by sclv 10y ago
You do get 0 * x <= 0. You just need a splash of domain theory to make the medicine go down.
12.
by sclv 10y ago
once you end up with a typeclass and associate the methods the unpacking goes away and you're just working in a context parameterized by some typeclass. i expressed it via that route to help make the connection to modules more clear. (
13.
by sclv 10y ago
This is an interesting question. As much more of a Haskeller than an MLer I don't tend to feel the "need" to structure my programs explicitly modularly, and when I do I sort of instinctively use a combination of typeclasses a
14.
by sclv 10y ago
i should have specified "modulo bottom" because i somehow didn't cotton i was talking to someone more interested in pedantry than actual discussion. that said, constructing an inhabitant of false a _different_ way (when we ca
15.
by sclv 10y ago
> I need univalence for this argument to hold water. No, you don't. Univalence is the axiom that transporting operations across such equivalences _always_ works. If you're doing equational reasoning directly it doesn't ari
16.
by sclv 10y ago
> Parametricity is too good to give up. With the minor exception of reference cells (`IORef`, `STRef`, etc.), if two types are isomorphic, applying the same type constructor to them should yield isomorphic types. You know that's not
17.
by sclv 10y ago
> You wanna play the dependent type theory card? Type families as provided in Haskell are incompatible with univalence. Hi. As someone that knows type theory and knows homotopy type theory and also knows Haskell well I would pose the fol
18.
by sclv 10y ago
YHC, Hugs, and nhc all discontinued development. The former is now virtually uncompilable (and was never complete), Hugs is officially unmaintained, nhc hasn't seen a release since 2010 so is not under new development. While there was
19.
by sclv 10y ago
The official website of the compiler itself is here: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/
20.
by sclv 10y ago
I have no idea either. The new site was never discussed once on the list ( https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/commercialhaskell ) nor does there seem to be anything in the CHG charter that would let it as a g
21.
by sclv 10y ago
No major component of Haskell is splitting in half fwiw. A small group of people have simply decided to fork a single website. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
22.
by sclv 10y ago
The reason he cites union-find is that it is one of the only significant data structures where sustained research hasn't either produced an immutable version with the same performance as the mutable one or demonstrated that one can&#x2
23.
by sclv 10y ago
There's no free speech on hackernews. People get moderated all the time! If hackernews can moderate its comments, then can't a conference moderate its speakers?
24.
by sclv 11y ago
> as of right now, you need to know category theory to understand the language and it's base libraries. This is patently false. You need to know what a Functor and a Monad are, as typeclasses with attendant laws. But you don't
25.
by sclv 11y ago
GADTs, phantom types, and arrows (not to mention monad transformers) aren't "mathematical terms" in that the names aren't borrowed from mathematical terminology. They're just _terms_. But to you they are new terms.
26.
by sclv 11y ago
This is a terrible and also hilarious argument. Instead of saying Haskell has too many newfangled ideas, you're instead arguing that it has an insufficient amount of them. So Haskell has newfangled innovations compared to the big playe
27.
by sclv 12y ago
For the record, the hosted files were daily builds of HEAD. Despite the domain name, these packages did not have "official status" anywhere and were not distributed outside of that site to our knowledge. In fact there are very few
28.
by sclv 12y ago
Luckily for everyone, the current discussion here is just such an iteration!
29.
by sclv 12y ago
The code doesn't run in-browser. It runs in a sandboxed environment elsewhere.
30.
by sclv 12y ago
It is well known that in the untyped (or dynamically typed if you prefer that language) case then the expression problem trivializes. In fact, if we sacrifice type-safety then the problem trivializes in a typed language too.

More ›