seagreen

8 ms·

31.
by seagreen 6y ago
Of course. And thanks for thinking about the idea, the more eyes on it the better.
32.
by seagreen 6y ago
Is Wikipedia wrong? It claims ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 ): An offset of zero, in addition to having the special representation "Z", can also be stated numerically as "+00:00&
33.
by seagreen 6y ago
Ooh, interesting. I made a GitHub repo for the new spec and credited you ( https://github.com/seagreen/rfc-3339T ). Let me know if you have more suggestions!
34.
by seagreen 6y ago
This gets repeated a lot but unfortunately isn't true. See the spec: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339 NOTE: ISO 8601 defines date and time separated by "T". Applications using this syntax ma
35.
by seagreen 6y ago
> Attoparsec and megaparsec don't backtrack. There are two notion of backtracking at play here. One is backtracking out of a failing first branch of <|> even though it's consumed some input. The megaparsec authors conside
36.
by seagreen 6y ago
> ... So long as you ignore that there are still things left unspecified by the interface, especially related to backtracking behavior. (I really hate how much mindspace Parsec-like libraries have in Haskell. They have the worst backtrac
37.
by seagreen 6y ago
> languages like Haskell exist and isn't that on the whole programming using category theory? It's not. However claims like that get thrown around a fair amount so the confusion is understandable. That said, some important Hask
38.
by seagreen 6y ago
> The 'problem' with Haskell is that, because of its roots in academic research the language will not chase success at any price (read hacks); and tends to eventually find solutions to its problems even if it means not being po
39.
by seagreen 6y ago
> however it would be interesting to have some examples of haskell developments that are fueled specifically by cryptocurrency applications An article saying "this sector of our community is bad and scamming retail investors" i
40.
by seagreen 6y ago
YAML's way, way more complicated that JSON. To pick one rough measure, the spec is about 7x as long. It includes a bunch of things that could be seen as negatives, such as nine(!) different ways to write multi-line strings ( https:&#x2
41.
by seagreen 6y ago
Comments are a great idea... for a configuration format! They're really bad for a data interchange format though, because people inevitably start putting important data in them and you end up with two different ways to write strings, o
42.
by seagreen 6y ago
Just curious-- have you actually read the specifications for both? The difference in length and complexity is like this comment vs. War and Peace.
43.
by seagreen 6y ago
Which specification got an update last year? Google's not turning anything up.
44.
by seagreen 6y ago
> However, parts of me miss the Apple of the 1980s and 1990s, where the engineers and researchers there explored ideas of how to make personal computing better. I feel that the personal computing experience for desktops have been stuck i
45.
by seagreen 6y ago
Thanks for the serious response to a somewhat snarky comment. I see software development as only one among the many things a computing system should enable. It's definitely an important one. But computers should enable creativity and p
46.
by seagreen 6y ago
> The fact that after half a century, Unix-like operating systems and programming environments are de rigueur is plain enough evidence of this. Unfortunately Unix blew a 28-3 lead against Netscape Navigator and now 99% of people spend th
47.
by seagreen 7y ago
This whole thread is going in my "Humility" file, not only did I misinterpret the error this one time, I've been messing around at the Erlang REPL putting a space after each command for absolutely no reason <headdesk>.
48.
by seagreen 7y ago
Oh, that makes sense! Thanks to both you and moreoutput. My argument is wrong then-- this isn't shockingly bad anything, just a little quirkiness.
49.
by seagreen 7y ago
I've had trouble getting into it because the ergonomics are so incredibly, wonderfully, art-project level rough. For example: $ erl Erlang/OTP 20 [erts-9.2] [source] [64-bit] [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10] [async-threads:10]
50.
by seagreen 7y ago
> in my company (a Fortune 500 ecommerce brand) My strategic advice is to get whatever's best in class, and not worry about $X0/month. Compared to what you should be spending on devs that rounds to free.
51.
by seagreen 7y ago
Huh, it seems obvious but I hadn't thought of this. I think that's because I was coming at this from the perspective of trying to prevent getting hacked, but really I'm less worried about that than I am about losing access.
52.
by seagreen 7y ago
This kind of thing makes picking a personal email address a tricky decision. Do I go with a @gmail.com or other corporate address? Then I risk losing my email if my account is suspended. Do I go with a domain I own? Then I risk losing it if
53.
by seagreen 7y ago
Name me a single company that uses Haskell 2010. It's completely irrelevant. But I'll leave you to argue with Vitaly Bragilevsky (speaking at Galois): "Haskell is a big language" -- https://galois.com/blo
54.
by seagreen 7y ago
> I think it's equally a disservice to tell people it's too complex to learn. There's a common impression people get that they have to master category theory before they can begin to understand Haskell code. That's al
55.
by seagreen 7y ago
Your argument is that a language with a 750,000 line implementation and a zillion features is simple because one of its IRs is simple? Doesn't seem very convincing.
56.
by seagreen 7y ago
We're on the exact same page :) I even think there's a place for fancy Haskell, but I think people reach for it a little too often.
57.
by seagreen 7y ago
> It's a qualitative statement and disingenuous. Complex relative to what? Complex relative to most programming languages. C++ is more complex. That says very little. C++ is an extreme outlier. I think Haskellers do a disservice to
58.
by seagreen 7y ago
OP: haskell is extremely complex. Responder: not it's not (eg C++ is more complex) Me: actually haskell is a complex, beastly language, eg check out the language extensions You: but C++ is more complex! Me: i agree EDIT: Didn't me
59.
by seagreen 7y ago
It depends on what we mean by Haskell. If we mean "Haskell the latest specification" that's Haskell 2010. I suppose we could think of it as pretty simple, though lazy evaluation means that any implementation of it is going to
60.
by seagreen 7y ago
The economics of the situation aren't friendly to humans, because human intelligence doesn't scale up well. Take energy consumption-- once you're providing someone 3 square meals they can't really use any extra energy ef

More ›