tome

51 ms·

751.
by tome 3y ago
Nice! Can you say what company you were working for?
752.
by tome 3y ago
I don't think it's got anything to do with Haskell 2010. Haskell is far more widely used in industry today than in 2010 by at least an order of magnitude. Heck, Mercury alone has about 250 Haskell programmers I think. That&#x27
753.
by tome 3y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that something that occupies 0.3% of an ecosystem can't be thriving? "Thriving" is not the same concept as "widely used" or "popular"!
754.
by tome 3y ago
And to return to the topic at hand, despite that article pointing to some weakness in the Haskell community, Haskell is thriving, so "We're suggesting that people should just use Rust (or Haskell, or F#, or any other robust functi
755.
by tome 3y ago
Yes, I can read the title thanks. The article is about Haskell. The first sentence makes it clear it's speculative fiction presented as if from the year 2030. The article draws a hypothetical analogy between what could happen to Rust
756.
by tome 3y ago
Not just in the Go community! Everyone believes in "as simple as possible". The disagreement is about "but no simpler".
757.
by tome 3y ago
> And how well did that work out for Haskell? You know this post is speculative fiction, right? It's actually about what could kill Haskell , not what could kill Rust?
758.
by tome 3y ago
I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. > The BBC understands the government now will raise the price it pays from £44 per MWh to as much as £70. > It is hoped more offshore wind capacity will lead to cheaper energy
759.
by tome 3y ago
> Syntax and other errors in Haskell provided through VSCode Haskell extension via GHC are comically bad, IMO, often amounting to a small red squiggly that's not even where the actual error is, with the message "parse error&quo
760.
by tome 3y ago
Yes > The 19th century Lorentzian ether theory was ruled out by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which ruled out the possibility that the Earth moves through the ether. What we propose here is that the Earth (and everything else)
761.
by tome 3y ago
I see. So even though 3.5 would attempt to answer your question, the results from 4 are significantly better?
762.
by tome 3y ago
Could I ask what exactly you get from 4 that you don't get from 3.5?
763.
by tome 3y ago
Yup, and the Madelung equations explicitly present QM without complex numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelung_equations#Equations
764.
by tome 3y ago
> Functional programmers regularly claim: > -Haskell is faster than C (lol) If they regularly claim that you should easily be able to point to several recent examples. Can you?
765.
by tome 3y ago
Interesting. Seems to be the exact opposite preference to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37997203 !
766.
by tome 3y ago
Right, and that's the case with every feature implemented in software. Showing both the precise datetime of creation and a "human readable ago" seems to cover a lot of bases that users seem to like, though. Recall, we'
767.
by tome 3y ago
It significantly reduces mental exertion to have the calculation performed for you!
768.
by tome 3y ago
> That seems to be different from CHI, which asserts a correspondence between proofs and programs, not between systems of logic and languages But proofs are written in systems of logic and programs are written in (programming) languages,
769.
by tome 3y ago
> neo haskell that was some random guy trying to become the benevolent dictator for life of the haskell ecosystem No, he was trying to become BDFL of his own project! And why not?
770.
by tome 3y ago
I don't think a utilitarian requires that utilities are real numbers, just that they satisfy a total ordering.
771.
by tome 3y ago
Thanks for your reply! I'm in a tricky position because I'm spending quite a lot of effort trying to improve the Haskell ecosystem, and although people report a lot of difficulty with language extensions I don't actually unde
772.
by tome 3y ago
> I basically drowned into a marsh of incomprehensible language extensions which were somehow required for pretty much every single library I also see this a lot, but do you really have to understand language extensions? These days one
773.
by tome 3y ago
> But someone new to the language is never, ever, ever going to intuit that you get the head of a list with `listToMaybe` They don't have to. Pattern matching is one of the first things they will learn, so they can use that instead
774.
by tome 3y ago
OK, fair enough that these two were incompatible, but I think your earlier statement is really misleading! > language extensions which were poorly documented and mutually incompatible but basically mandatory due to widespread usage Nei
775.
by tome 3y ago
> language extensions which were poorly documented and mutually incompatible I often hear complaints about mutually incompatible language extensions, but when I aske I hardly ever find anyone who can name two! Can you?
776.
by tome 3y ago
> I think Haskell needs a way to graduate (or retire) language extensions That sounds like the Extension lifecycle framework proposal https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/601
777.
by tome 3y ago
> But the obvious and easy solution in the current language would be to return Maybe, which isn't done because there's a feeling that it's not a big enough step to be worth the effort, and dependent types will eventually s
778.
by tome 3y ago
It's really hard to understand what you mean. Could you clarify, taking into account these two results, firstly a correct calculation from a statically typed language, Haskell, and secondly an incorrect calculation from a dynamically t
779.
by tome 3y ago
> I believe that concepts are tools for programmers to reach for when appropriate, functional programmers believe concepts are rules and reaching for them should be mandatory Could you give some examples of such concepts? It's rath
780.
by tome 3y ago
Very helpful, thank you!

More ›