tel

95 ms·

901.
by tel 11y ago
Not even definition, but "assignment". Definitions do not change.
902.
by tel 11y ago
There's something interesting here too in that what many call variables are actually a bit more like "assignables". The upshot is that only in programming do variables behave this way---distinct and unlike mere "names&qu
903.
by tel 11y ago
It's kind of funny how, rightfully, the author paints a picture where the "horrible, enlightened external dependency" itself is antimodular to the T. Given that all modules supposedly have stable interfaces, documentation, te
904.
by tel 11y ago
I don't know the reason, but I feel nearly intellectually crippled since losing access to the multitudes of blackboards available on college campuses. White boards do not even approach the utility of blackboards for me. People in this
905.
by tel 11y ago
The non-infix names are a bit more conservative, yes, but it's easy to define your own of course. And to even argue back about $ and & is pretty bike-sheddy. It's just a choice that was made.
906.
by tel 11y ago
On the other hand, <*> is closer in spirit to what $ is.
907.
by tel 11y ago
It's tragic people feel that way. They're actually very well-designed, but if you don't like operator soup then no amount of design will convince you otherwise. Which is fine and why the Lens package is able to be imported op
908.
by tel 11y ago
It's worth noting that there's a small potential performance penalty to this if it's being called all the time and it's being lifted through a large transformer stack.
909.
by tel 11y ago
I was about to try to talk about the genuine elegance of Applicatives—and I'm more than happy to defend them in general—but then, yeah. In this instance, I'm not sure I'd be able to argue that the change was such a good choic
910.
by tel 11y ago
A pretty sizable chunk of the OCaml world is French. It was developed at INRIA, yeah, and maintains a lot of presence there. It's actually a tiny bit difficult from time to time in OCaml to find English resources.
911.
by tel 11y ago
One way to look at this is to note ask what exactly it meant when you said "a sphere of volume". In the real world it's ultimately impossible to imagine spaces which don't have volume of some kind or another, but in math
912.
by tel 11y ago
They're certainly not unsuitable, but they have a tendency to take observation/realization/grasping/proving as an instantaneous process. In most people's regular understanding of logic, however, this is false. There
913.
by tel 11y ago
I have no idea what "reactive framework" might mean, but by most definitions of "reactive" that I know... React actually isn't even close. It's not "not reactive", just tangential entirely.
914.
by tel 11y ago
Are you uniting "intuitionism" and common "intuition"? I'm not personally sure I disagree here at all, but I'm certain many would!
915.
by tel 11y ago
I recently learned that `forty_two` [0] is monkeypatched into Array of all places by Rails. More or less entirely as a meta joke. [0] http://apidock.com/rails/Array/forty_two
916.
by tel 11y ago
I think there are definitely interesting things to talk about in foundations, and also that many are now well motivated by computer science. It's not like these are either unknown or special, though. For most "practical", pur
917.
by tel 11y ago
That just depends upon whatever type abstraction capabilities Crystal grows. It probably won't be getting higher-kinded nominal types so generalizing over Monad is sort of dead in the water anyway.
918.
by tel 11y ago
Best practice and it's required to make certain more advanced type features work. It's the same with Crystal. Their generics require type annotations.
919.
by tel 11y ago
And to be honest, (T | Nil) is pretty difficult to distinguish from (Maybe a = a + 1). Complaints feel difficult to motivate to me anyway.
920.
by tel 11y ago
They have a couple posts on their inference algorithm, but I confess I haven't read them.
921.
by tel 11y ago
Dialyzer is nice, no doubt! But to compare it to Haskell's typing is disingenuous at best. Success typing captures far less information and maintains far fewer invariants.
922.
by tel 11y ago
They just show up everywhere, adjoints. Often you'll be able to then use their uniqueness and limit preservation properties. Typically CS style category theory is a little bereft of categories to make maximal use of their appearance, b
923.
by tel 11y ago
This is where types come in handy. With types you are constantly declaring APIs, publicly and with confidence, so it's easier when one starts to bear real load.
924.
by tel 11y ago
There are two orthogonal concerns with microservices. First is the scaling aspect. A microservice architecture has many potential scale point as each independent service can be horizontally scaled independently. Unfortunately, while achievi
925.
by tel 11y ago
Yes, of course. I'm not trying to prove anything, just to not that non-termination leads to suspicious looking logics.
926.
by tel 11y ago
It's true! The reasoning is fairly simple, though. In such a language, types classify terms and types correspond to theorems. The type/theorem for a fixed point is fix : forall a . (a -> a) -> a which as a theorem r
927.
by tel 11y ago
I don't know that there's anything special about Russell's paradox in particular, to be honest. It has obvious historical importance, obviously, but I doubt that's what you're looking for. There's something a b
928.
by tel 11y ago
It might be valuable to expand the definitions of things a bit. First, we talk about characteristic functions. As noted, they are merely functions which return either 1 or 0, True or False. They represent sets by examining their argument an
929.
by tel 11y ago
There's some significant sense to what you're talking about, so I'll share some pointers into deeper waters. The idea of a value being a type is the nature of "dependently typed" languages. However, they do it the o
930.
by tel 11y ago
If your goal is optimization then MH is a bad choice. This is fine since MH is simply not an optimization algorithm! It's design to make accurate samples from a posterior distribution which you can measure but not find a functional for

More ›