tome

30 ms·

481.
by tome 2y ago
Oh, I meant it's impossible to mix ST with actual exceptions as implemented in the RTS, rather than with ExceptT which simulates exceptions in pure code (like StateT simulates mutable state in pure code). You're right, through a s
482.
by tome 2y ago
> (Also, it has exceptions which are a bad language feature, and typed throws which are a worse one.) Can you elaborate? You can't stop people simulating exceptions with sum types, and if you have exceptions, why wouldn't you
483.
by tome 2y ago
I don't think GP is contradicting that.
484.
by tome 2y ago
I'm not convinced about the dismissal of option 2. I agree ST is clunky but not for the reasons given. It's clunky because it's impossible to mix with other effects. What if I want ST and exceptions, for example, and I wa
485.
by tome 2y ago
Me too. I skimmed through the comments assuming they were talking about the Lisp equivalent of Python's self.
486.
by tome 2y ago
If you're open to challenging your preconceptions (dare I say dogma?) about Haskell programmers then I'm willing to share my opinions on good software development and how Haskell helps, based on over a decade of professional exper
487.
Groq Supercharges Fast AI Inference for Meta Llama 3.1(wow.groq.com)
7 points by tome 2y ago|2 comments
488.
by tome 2y ago
> at the edges where we need to interact with run time exceptions, the state of resources external to the process, etc. Even in Haskell you can write your code procedurally if you want. You won’t get the benefits of denotational design I
489.
by tome 2y ago
> I used to find Haskell wikis confusing as heck because they use CT terminology but nobody clarifies what category they're actually working in! "Hask", the (almost) category where the objects are types and the morphisms f
490.
by tome 2y ago
Haskell also allows you to easily write like this for numbers $ \x -> do Console.log x return (x * x)
491.
by tome 2y ago
It wraps around? The surface of the earth is also finite but unbounded (as a 2D space).
492.
by tome 2y ago
https://pragprog.com/titles/swdddf/domain-modeling-made-func... , even though it's F# rather than Haskell. And maybe https://leanpub.com/algebra-driven-design depending on the exact use case.
493.
by tome 2y ago
I don't know what to tell you. I've been successfully using Haskell in production for over ten years, and it's the most maintainable language I've used for a variety of reasons, including the one given in my message abov
494.
by tome 2y ago
Strange. In my experience Haskell is the best language for long-term maintainability! I can actually come back to code I've written years ago and understand what it does. I've never experience that with another language.
495.
by tome 2y ago
That's what (some) other people do. None of that stops you writing Haskell in whatever style you want, with meaningful variable names, curly braces and semicolons!
496.
by tome 2y ago
> I'd say using an entirely different collection type than the rest of language (STArray instead of [a]) is already a big complication Haskell uses many different collection types, just like any other language. Why not? > it&#x27
497.
by tome 2y ago
Sabry's definition of "pure" fails to satisfy me for two reasons: 1. It assumes that the language is "a conservative extension of the simply typed λ-calculus". That's rather high-powered yet also really restr
498.
by tome 2y ago
PureScript is an example.
499.
by tome 2y ago
To plug my own solution, my effect system Bluefin makes exceptions visible in the type, well-scoped, and also freely composable with all other effects: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/bluefin-0.0.3.0/docs/
500.
by tome 2y ago
> technically that isn't true if you use, for example, unsafePerfomIO in the defintion of x Ah, well, regardless of whether it holds in Haskell, referential transparency is a well-defined concept. Purity is not a well-defined con
501.
by tome 2y ago
You're right: "pure" is not a well-defined concept. The well-defined concept that describes Haskell's benefits in this regard is "referential transparency". That means that this code let x = <definiti
502.
by tome 2y ago
> This phrase is a reminder that nobody would care if you died apart from the fact that only you know how to do x and y. An alternative interpretation is "we have to keep doing x and y to earn our living, and it's doubly diffic
503.
by tome 2y ago
That doesn't sound right. In the limit, where you're forbidden from building anything on the land at all, the price will tend to zero. I'm not certain the relationship is linear, but if it is then it must be the opposite to
504.
by tome 2y ago
> So its value goes down, and with it the tax revenue The value of the buildings might go down, but I don't see why the value of the unimproved land (which LVT is determined by) would go down.
505.
by tome 2y ago
I'm curious about what you mean by 'compared to Haskell'. You don't have to annotate everything in Haskell either, do you?
506.
by tome 2y ago
> These LLMs are not about helping anyone, their goals are engagement and mining data for that engagement. Wow, this is a really interesting idea! A sneaky play for LLM providers is to be helpful enough to still be used, but also suffic
507.
by tome 2y ago
Intriguing! Can you give some examples? And maybe contrast their preponderance to mathematical examples?
508.
by tome 2y ago
What combatant to civilian death ratio would make Israel's actions in Gaza justified, in your opinion?
509.
by tome 2y ago
Gooby doesn't suck though. (I'm not joking.)
510.
by tome 2y ago
> "Don't you see the deeper hidden artistic structure!?" This comes across as very snarky. The word used was "mathematical", not "artistic". Mathematics has proved invaluable in many domains of busine

More ›