tome

46 ms·

781.
by tome 3y ago
> I've also been very slowly chipping away at some base(/prelude) Haskell library replacement, because I find it beyond embarrassing that in 2023 with a default Haskell installation one cannot make a HTTPS GET request. Sounds i
782.
by tome 3y ago
I'm not sure I understand why someone shouldn't be allow to be benevolent dictator of their own project, that they started.
783.
by tome 3y ago
> we bumped hard into a lot of the typical ecosystem problems I think those are the things we really wanted to hear from you about! I'm actively working on improving the Haskell ecosystem. I'm aware of a lot of "typical e
784.
by tome 3y ago
> I'm trying to understand why one would design a parser or parser library this way Simplicity. None of the industrial strength Haskell parsers (parsec, megaparsec, attoparsec, flatparse, happy) are implemented that way.
785.
by tome 3y ago
I'm not sure if you meant this to be snarky but that's how it comes across to me! If your questions were genuine, then there are indeed good answers. > Why is this a good design? It's simple, so it's a good design f
786.
by tome 3y ago
> lenses solve a problem that no other language has Indeed other languages don't have problems dealing with immutable collections since almost none have good immutable collections. All I can say is that, when working with other lan
787.
by tome 3y ago
> people think they need to understand what a monad is from a category theory pov before they can write meaningful code Yes, this is a very strange belief
788.
by tome 3y ago
> The belief that Russia is weak serves to sell more weapons and if there were a belief that Russia was strong it would serve to sell ... fewer ... weapons?
789.
by tome 3y ago
Ah, so now your original statement becomes clearer! When you said > Look at all the monad insanity Haskell has to do to get the equivalent of a print statement perhaps you really meant > Look at all the monad insanity Haskell has to
790.
by tome 3y ago
> I believe the common complaint is that "just need to mark your function as IO ()" has non-local effects, you end up needing to propagate a bunch of extra stuff everywhere Yes, indeed you do. But it's a bit strange that
791.
by tome 3y ago
I'm still not really sure what you mean. In what sense do you mean it's " implicit on `main`"?
792.
by tome 3y ago
I'm not sure I follow. That doesn't seem to be a special property of `main`!
793.
by tome 3y ago
I think you're splitting hairs! Equivocation about what's rude and what's not is not a good look for the Haskell community.
794.
by tome 3y ago
Really? Async programming is used by millions of happy Javascript, C#, Python etc. developers every day.
795.
by tome 3y ago
It's very hard to do that if you want to use higher-order functions ergonomically. In fact that's the entire reason this area of language design is difficult at all. Specifically, if you define a higher order function (e.g. `f
796.
by tome 3y ago
In what way is it very special? Is it more special than `main` in C, for example?
797.
by tome 3y ago
Although I disagree with TylerE about the issue that started this thread, I agree that assuming that someone doesn't understand something is generally considered rude and would advise people against that. I would doubly advise them a
798.
by tome 3y ago
One might say your original claim was not in good faith. You said > Look at all the monad insanity Haskell has to do to get the equivalent of a print statement but it's easy to do that! If you meant something more complex and subt
799.
by tome 3y ago
Normally by "Haskell" I'd mean "GHC", since that's the Haskell that everyone actually uses, but even Haskell 98 has higher-kinded types!
800.
by tome 3y ago
Good to know about the ecosystem differences, thanks. Hopefully with some effort Haskell will be able to catch up there. And yes, Haskell gets some defaults wrong. Regarding the type systems, they're definitely not near identical :)
801.
by tome 3y ago
His phone isn’t broken.
802.
by tome 3y ago
tome's law in action ;-) "In any discussion about an article whose title is a question, Betteridge's law is mentioned with probability 1." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24545238
803.
by tome 3y ago
> I don't think Rust is over-hyped; almost everything I would have used Haskell for I do in Rust now. As a Haskell fan this is very interesting! What sort of things do you write where you find Rust is a better fit? No code that I
804.
by tome 3y ago
Yes, typically it would be used to mean things like the code mutates data in place rather than using persistent data structures, explicitly loops over data rather than using higher-order map, fold etc. operations, and explicitly checks tag
805.
by tome 3y ago
> the author of the blogpost is one of those functional programming proselytizers ... Such pure, very monoid in the category of endofunctors Sorry, who's sneering here?
806.
by tome 3y ago
> With CPP or cabal tricks > I don't know what cabal tricks is supposed to mean here. It means conditional compilation, i.e. what the C preprocessor also gives you (but somewhat more principled).
807.
by tome 3y ago
Apparently it was granted it 1997 so should have expired in 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectible_card_game#Wizards_...
808.
by tome 3y ago
> Fixing mine requires understanding how `do` and `<-` interact, which I remain skeptical can be done without exposing oneself to monads. I think this is the major point of contention between us. I don't think that understanding
809.
by tome 3y ago
> My point isn't that it errors. It's completely reasonable to expect even a beginner to do basic troubleshooting. My point is that the error specifically mentions monads. Right, and the Python errors mention all sorts of thing
810.
by tome 3y ago
Seems rather presumptuous.

More ›