tel

76 ms·

721.
by tel 11y ago
Haskell's GHC is a super clever optimizing compiler with a garbage collector built around the sort of memory pressure that arises when you've got tons of immutable data. Some of GHC's brand of speed comes from the super optim
722.
by tel 11y ago
This may be very true and I think that if you're more familiar with the program and recognize that the host must know the answer then it becomes more a question of statistical intuition. I'm confident that there are lots of people
723.
by tel 11y ago
Promises also have a notion of parallel tasking which isn't, at least in my mental model of IO, really IO. But of course we're talking about IO... so my mental model is just that: mine and mine alone, really.
724.
by tel 11y ago
That's the whole reason why the problem is tough. It's carefully worded to be ambiguous about that point so that most people assume it was random (most of the erroneous math people pull out is valid were it random) but the problem
725.
by tel 11y ago
The idea here is that you can separate your "functionality basis" which does require mocking because it genuinely hits the database from "composed functionality" which operates through a pure, monadic DSL and eventually
726.
by tel 11y ago
I often get the idea that there's been sort of this slump of scale that occurred somewhere in the 80s where the pioneers of CS found themselves suddenly flooded with new people. The challenge moved from thinking of better ways to &quot
727.
by tel 11y ago
Perhaps "Given what I've seen you up to, I can personally grasp that you're studying intuitionistic logic.".
728.
by tel 11y ago
I always feel like `f(a)` invokes the idea that `f` is a value dependent on some `a` where notations like `(f a)` and `f a` are more indicative of the idea that `f` is a thing which has the operation of application to `a`. This makes sense
729.
by tel 11y ago
Walk shows up quite often in the "uniplate" functionality of Haskell's `lens`. It's really, really useful for handling AST transformations, but depends a bit on laziness here.
730.
by tel 11y ago
> Any connection to transducers? Yep! On the fancy Haskell lens hierarchy (hackage.haskell.org/package/lens) we have the notion of a fold or a "getter which touches multiple items". The existence of a fold for a typ
731.
by tel 11y ago
Definitely more lens than zipper. If you think of a lens, in simple form, as a path into a structure then a zipper is a structure plus a path into itself. This constrains the form that a zipper can take. If you examine these paths on their
732.
by tel 11y ago
Oh! I'm glad to hear about this. I was getting painfully close to having to implement it myself...
733.
by tel 11y ago
That's one nice thing provable in Haskell's type/effect system, though, that the ambient effects available are no stronger than X for various descriptions of X. I know you dislike that whole regime, but it at least in this sp
734.
by tel 11y ago
Many things I could respond to, but out of convenience I'll just note that there's a reason why nobody programs in Haskell in the Cont monad unless they really can't avoid it!
735.
by tel 11y ago
The propositions all assume false, but don't prove it. In session 4 you've also got translations of things like contraposition, (not (not (not A))) -> (not A) (which is importantly different from double negation elimination sin
736.
by tel 11y ago
Isabelle is definitely type-based by any definition I could think of. Really it's more of a logic and TLA+ is model checker. If we want to do model checking then SMT solvers are in every half-sane dependency manager on the planet verif
737.
by tel 11y ago
Ahhh, well if you're taking aim at Haskell somehow being "right" then I'm not going to say a thing. :) I think as far as monads go I quite like your distinction drawn elsewhere between abstractions for mathematical sake
738.
by tel 11y ago
I think the very most common property of programs I or anyone ever deals with is handily covered by Haskell's type system: "do these two (often complex) things fit together?" The other properties you mention are great! I&#x27
739.
by tel 11y ago
Computation in mathematics is well represented in the constructive and intuitionistic camps. It was thoroughly examined in the 1930s via the invention of things like lambda calculus and turing machines. It was also subsequently rejected by
740.
by tel 11y ago
You know how ES6 has this big hoorah coming because they're finally getting something to make callback hell a little less hellish, async/await? Well. It's a monad. It's about 30s of work to implement it if you know what
741.
by tel 11y ago
Those are what're thought of as standard "frequentist" basics; practical tools originally invented for practitioners. Many basic texts aiming to be statistics for scientists will do well, though unfortunately I don't hav
742.
by tel 11y ago
What kind of stats work are you interested in?
743.
by tel 11y ago
+1 on all of this (except I'm a fan of full MCMC, have you used ADVI?)
744.
by tel 11y ago
Stan is absolutely a world class general Bayesian sampling tool. It replaces things like BUGS and uses fantastic algorithms for fast convergence. One of the major people behind it, Andrew Gelman, is a leader in applied hierarchical modeling
745.
by tel 11y ago
Depends on what kind of generality of statement you're trying to make. Here, the generality might be a cause and effect one in which case you're attempting to generalize over possible future treatments and you attack detractors wh
746.
by tel 11y ago
I think you do need "bug for bug" compatibility between semantics—because the other choice is worse—but that drives home what it takes to genuinely have alternative semantic choices: sufficient concision of definition to be able t
747.
by tel 11y ago
Fair enough. I conflated syntax with convention. It is used quite frequently, actually, e.g. in describing type classes.
748.
by tel 11y ago
It's nice to have the data/declarative notion of an instruction. It's even nicer to have this notion be exactly the same notion by which you cause effects via your language. This means that all effectual code you encounter ca
749.
by tel 11y ago
Another way of looking at this, which is well loved in the PL community, is that there is no one exact interpretation of a fragment of syntax. Haskell is interesting because it has both operational and equational semantics and you can choos
750.
by tel 11y ago
Hey, I didn't say one was worse or better but merely suggested some arguments as to why one might dislike that signature. Clearly, as you demonstrate, the syntax described can be shortened—but it wasn't. And by the definition be

More ›