sullyj3

30 ms·

271.
by sullyj3 7y ago
When you look back, you're looking back from the particular world where X became a requirement. If instead, Y had become a requirement, you would be looking back wishing you had structured your code in some completely different way. YA
272.
by sullyj3 7y ago
Both Java and Javascript are giant messes.
273.
by sullyj3 7y ago
obviously ultimately you need observation, but I think this article ( https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien... ) makes an intuitive case that having better researchers gets you greater insight
274.
by sullyj3 7y ago
you're possibly thinking of the problem of consciousness, which is a totally separate thing. AGI is just what it says on the tin - a general intelligence. That is, a problem solver that can operate at a human or greater level in a broa
275.
by sullyj3 7y ago
can't you just comment them out?
276.
by sullyj3 7y ago
> The best thing about facts is I have no need to convince people of anything. Facts are true whether we believe in them or not, and someday reality will come along to inform us of those facts rather painfully if we choose to ignore them
277.
by sullyj3 7y ago
Many people base their decisions on whether to emulate someone on more than the success of that person's career.
278.
by sullyj3 7y ago
If facts matter so much, it's important to be able to convince people of those facts. And in order to do that, facts about the best way to convince someone are relevant. And the fact is, believing that the best way to convince someone
279.
by sullyj3 7y ago
A giant chunk of Linux users are software developers. Running code that has not yet been packaged or never will be is an extremely common occurrence for a developer.
280.
by sullyj3 7y ago
To indulge in fisking a tiny bit - > HKP is practically unavoidable on the road to understanding a Haskell program that prints Hello World. main :: IO () main = putStrLn "Hello World" Doesn't require an understan
281.
by sullyj3 7y ago
The point about how difficult it is to learn is well made and well taken. This difficulty is very contextual though - this is a problem for the language in terms of adoption, but it's not a problem if, for instance, you're a team
282.
by sullyj3 7y ago
But, this is a problem specific to Haskell and its poor record syntax, not the functional paradigm in general.
283.
by sullyj3 7y ago
> (Contrast this with talks by someone like Rich Hickey, who manages to communicate complex and broad concepts with no jargon.) It really seems to me that a big reason Rich Hickey seems so profound is that what he's saying means 10
284.
by sullyj3 7y ago
well, you bought it.
285.
by sullyj3 7y ago
Roll a few dice.
286.
by sullyj3 7y ago
I generally find that whenever someone points out that a feature that a plugin implements is already present in vim, the vim native feature has atrocious UX. It feels like a personality thing, it just seems like a lot of vim users don'
287.
by sullyj3 7y ago
Knowing you can <$> <*> >>= doesn't mean you know what something does/what it's for though.
288.
by sullyj3 7y ago
Or, it's worth mentioning, you can do `:t (<$>)` in the repl to quickly get the type.
289.
by sullyj3 7y ago
I don't know about you, but sometimes I do things just because I want to.
290.
by sullyj3 7y ago
There are many reasons Haskell is difficult to learn, and the functional programming aspects are only part of it. I'd venture a guess that it's vastly easier to go from say, python to clojure, than from python to haskell. Even neg
291.
by sullyj3 7y ago
> Honestly this sentiment from the Haskell community that Haskell is somehow bizarre and impenetrable to outsiders and needs to be somehow watered down so that normal people can understand it just feels extremely elitist and if anything
292.
by sullyj3 7y ago
> I don't have the slightest idea what the first "do" does. We know from the type signature that it returns a `ScottyM ()`, whatever that means. We don't know what that entails without having looked at the documentati
293.
by sullyj3 7y ago
The surface similarities between haskell and F# are fairly clear - emphasis on pure functions, no parens and commas for function calls, etc. Alexis King wrote an interesting comment on one reason haskell can be difficult to pick up, which m
294.
by sullyj3 7y ago
I'd say it depends heavily on what you're writing. If it involves graphics, Javascript is going to be substantially less annoying, at least initially. However, the version you write in Haskell will be much more reliable, and much
295.
by sullyj3 7y ago
This suggestion is a straightforward, easy to implement improvement. Many compilers have serious UX problems because their authors don't take UX seriously. Elm and Rust are two languages getting this right.
296.
by sullyj3 7y ago
well, it'd be more like (fold op . map f . filter p . zip) l1 l2 Which I think is very understandable as long as you're familiar with what all of them do. Which you become, very quickly.
297.
by sullyj3 7y ago
That's because you already knew haskell and knew what you were missing out on. Elm having a less expressive type system makes it a much better introduction to concepts like ADTs and pattern matching, higher order functions, and enforce
298.
by sullyj3 7y ago
what universe are you living in that you don't have to trust code written by randoms? nobody has the time to evaluate every transitive dependency. you take a small risk of getting hit by a car when you cross the road, and you take a sm
299.
by sullyj3 7y ago
Is do notation a language feature?
300.
by sullyj3 7y ago
Google "haskell motto"

More ›