tel

60 ms·

541.
by tel 10y ago
It was mentioned as a criterion. Actually, multiple: - "Perfect IDE support" when described hinges on types - "Static Optimizability" specifically mentions enjoying type-driven AOT optimizations - &q
542.
by tel 10y ago
Except for: types. That's a big deal about what the author liked about Scala.js.
543.
by tel 10y ago
I feel like you've not seriously used each of them. Ghcjs is very interesting, but also very, very early. The ecosystem is tiny, the compiler produces huge and slow builds, the interop is tricky, the semantics imperfect. It may be a ve
544.
by tel 10y ago
Purescript is pretty production ready. It's in use in production in a number of places.
545.
by tel 10y ago
The huge issue is that subclassing is different from subtying. LSP is absolutely necessary for subtyping, but subtclassing is only tangentially related. In practice, this doesn't quite hold though since the principle method by which su
546.
by tel 10y ago
Nope, and in general it doesn't exist. That said, there are techniques for "deconvolution" which partially reverse (or in some, special cases completely reverse) a kernel convolution.
547.
by tel 10y ago
To do some reverse pedantry, actually that let is necessary but it's the one binding `func` that gets more use. It's a really interesting part of how ML-like languages do type inference that makes `let`s completely necessary.
548.
by tel 10y ago
If you haven't read Mindstorms yet and you have any interest at all in how learning, mathematics, and programming are interrelated then please take a moment to go buy it today. There's little risk that Papert's ideas will fai
549.
by tel 10y ago
Black bar, please.
550.
by tel 10y ago
> why doesn't it seem very impressive at first (and second, and third) sight? That's a super interesting question. Pretty much the entire challenge of LC is coming to understand why it's interesting. From our perspective,
551.
by tel 10y ago
As others have noted, LC is hardly trendy crap and you might say that 80% of CS is just trying to find more natural names for LC. But what I'll say is that LC has done a lot for you lately. It, alongside Turing Machines, formed the bas
552.
by tel 10y ago
You can definitely model that, too, but it leads you even further away from being able to say that the "true model" is a physical thing of any nature.
553.
by tel 10y ago
Maybe some people think they're a little complex, but there's nothing particularly wrong with them in Haskell. They can be extended further in a dependently-typed context, but that's really another thing completely.
554.
by tel 10y ago
I think type theory is really nice for writing down certain things. Quantified statements are a perfect example! But Category Theory has nice properties, too. You already mention universal properties and adjunctions. Those are obvious examp
555.
by tel 10y ago
That's reasonably fair, but it's worth noting that even in these situations the true circumstance might be a little more nuanced than the idea of a "true model" suggests. - In polling, it's a bit of an ideal world i
556.
by tel 10y ago
It's a bit of a philosophical thing. The data arose because of results of some large set of processes, all unobserved. Assuming a deterministic world—just for convenience of argument here—there's no actual underlying distribution
557.
by tel 10y ago
It's hard to appreciate because to make the abstract nature valuable you need a body of concrete examples. You could probably do this halfway through an undergrad course, but it's not traditional. You can also do it with a body of
558.
by tel 10y ago
I feel like functional lenses have vastly improved upon this idea now by (a) being first class, (b) being completely composable, and (c) being general enough to include notions of access into sum types and having multiple targets.
559.
by tel 10y ago
I definitely get where you're coming from, but the introduction of Z[sqrt(-5)] was just there to illustrate that proof is hard. Even if you never invoke an exotic example it's hard to have proof that FTA holds. The simplest way to
560.
by tel 10y ago
It's not false, it's just unspecified. If you hand me scheme I can provide it a unitype system without conflict. If you hand me Haskell I cannot because the language has explicitly said that uncheckable statements are invalid. You
561.
by tel 10y ago
I doubt Djikstra would have been Djikstra is he communicated in such a sterile way. His writing achieved the ends he sought. He's memorable and endlessly quoted which gives life to his ideas beyond what is immediately provable. You mig
562.
by tel 10y ago
This particular complaint feels like a typing issue. If functions can accept anything and use lots of partial duck typing then they might partially accept anything and not quite work. There's just an unstated precondition: the argument
563.
by tel 10y ago
Having used them both quite a bit I really cannot say that Redux is much at all like the Elm Architecture. It separates views and state machines. This works well for managing state in an application-wide sense but complicates state which is
564.
by tel 10y ago
But if I don't trust you then your program and limit can only be verified by my execution of it. This might be incredibly or even in feasibly expensive and unless you've also got a resource bound proof then I might be sunk. On the
565.
by tel 10y ago
While I think what your saying is true, it's frowned upon. It's saying "I've discovered a truly marvelous proof and its at the bottom of this cave". We've dodged the infinity risk, but not the resources involve
566.
by tel 10y ago
There's a lot of fine distinction, and a hell of a lot of study, of these kinds of questions. One thing you might ask of your proofs is that they are immediate—which is to say, they can be (a) grasped and (b) believed, at least in prin
567.
by tel 10y ago
Proof by exhaustion?
568.
by tel 10y ago
He did provide them but didn't do a very good job, tbh. Types capture the behavior you want to express in your program and Rich ultimately concluded that types could no achieve this for transducers. On the other hand, many libraries si
569.
by tel 10y ago
I'd kind of like to buy this just for the visuals. I'm happily competent with group theory already, but wouldn't mind a neat coffee table book!
570.
by tel 10y ago
It's widely discussed in Haskell communities, fwiw ;)

More ›