trurl

10 ms·

61.
by trurl 12y ago
Maybe there is something I'm missing due to having little knowledge about all the legal subtitles. It seems like startups could come out ahead by realizing that in the modern world, there is no reason for a talented developer to be on
62.
by trurl 12y ago
Unfortunately, it looks like all his course materials have disappeared from the web. Haven't had a chance to check the Internet Archive.
63.
by trurl 12y ago
I could swear at least one of the years Peter Lee taught it they worked backwards, but maybe my memory is off.
64.
by trurl 12y ago
It has been taught this way at CMU some years.
65.
by trurl 12y ago
OCaml hasn't stood still either. The latest releases take advantage of some "fairly recent" research. Python on the other hand didn't even take advantage of cutting edge research at the time it was created, and as far
66.
by trurl 12y ago
WebObjects used to be highly regarded. I would assume that given the Objective-C origins, Swift could use it as well?
67.
by trurl 12y ago
Again, you clearly aren't from around here. To be less facetious, I could also choose AT&T DSL, but they don't offer competitive bandwidth. And they aren't exactly a small independent ISP. There might be ISPs that offer
68.
by trurl 12y ago
We truly have the best government money can buy.
69.
by trurl 12y ago
Clearly you aren't living in the United States. My choices are Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast. I'm really starting to think mesh networks are going to be the only solution.
70.
by trurl 13y ago
This is the sort of stuff that made me decide to stop donating money to the FSF. Instead of using my money to help fund the development of new and improved GNU options that will help convince people to switch, they're wasting a whole
71.
by trurl 13y ago
I should perhaps also say that I don't deny Scala could use some simplification, but there are plenty of tangible benefits to algebraic datatypes and they don't require knowing anything about fancy types (unless you want GADTs) or
72.
by trurl 13y ago
Then apparently you've never used them properly. Just this last week I was converting some our legacy Java visitors over to case classes and wound up with 2-4x reductions in code size. That's nothing to scoff at.
73.
by trurl 13y ago
Without any kind of support for algebraic datatypes or case classes it isn't viable replacement for Scala.
74.
by trurl 13y ago
Indeed.
75.
by trurl 14y ago
Yes, my first thought was with rising healthcare costs whether even I'd be able to afford these fancy manufactured organs should I need them.
76.
by trurl 14y ago
LogicBlox ( http://logicblox.com/ ) is using Datalog for real-world enterprise software development. At present, the implementation is far more advanced than any other. See http://www.logicblox.com/technical-reports/LB1201_LeapfrogTr...
77.
by trurl 14y ago
This is actually very old idea. I remember some game creator program on the Apple II that you could teach games. Probably nothing as sophisticated as chess, but maybe tic-tac-toe and connect four. Unfortunately, this was over twenty year
78.
by trurl 15y ago
Spineless.
79.
by trurl 15y ago
I am all for strong, static typing, but in fairness I don't see how C++ can be considered weaker than C? Or alternately how F# is less static than Haskell or weaker than Scala? Or am I just reading too much into the chart?
80.
by trurl 15y ago
See www.cs.princeton.edu/~dpw/papers/lambdazap-icfp06.pdf
81.
by trurl 15y ago
Actually, this is why proof assistants are so great. You drink a couple glasses of champagne at someone's PhD defense reception, and you can go back to your office and try as you may, it won't let you prove anything incorrect.
82.
by trurl 15y ago
AWESOME
83.
by trurl 15y ago
However, if you set the symbol locking depth larger (-Yrecursion n) you'll also get a stack overflow as well. So it isn't necessarily that Scala has an algorithmically better approach to subtyping. The symbol locking algorithm is more of
84.
by trurl 15y ago
For what it is worth, the equivalent Scala code is trait Pong[T] {} class Ping[T] extends Pong[Pong[X forSome { type X >: Ping[Ping[T]]}]] { def Ping() { val Ping : Pong[X forSome { type X >: Ping[Long]}] = new Ping
85.
by trurl 15y ago
Yes, I guess I answered the letter of his question... but I personally wouldn't use collection types indexed by a size unless (a) I really really needed to be sure about this particular invariant (b) there was a bit more sugar and automatio
86.
by trurl 15y ago
Yes, you can do that by using types indexed by a number. See https://apocalisp.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/type-level-progra... for one take on this.
87.
by trurl 15y ago
Indeed. I think many people seem to miss the fact that types are a language for describing the data in your program. I also think many people do not understand the benefits of type abstraction, perhaps because many languages do not even of
88.
by trurl 15y ago
You do realize the futility of such questions given Turing completeness, right? It is not about what can be expressed, but about how you express things. You do not need function literals in Scala, but it is sure is more concise and cleaner
89.
by trurl 15y ago
Unless there are some very recent experimental extensions that I have not heard about, Scala does not have support for linear or substructural typing. I suspect you are thinking of structural subtyping, which is a completely different conce
90.
by trurl 15y ago
I'm not sure why this is remotely surprisng, at least compared to other things. I'm fairly certain our administrators have complete access to our Google Apps GMail, not to mention logs of network activity, etc. Just like you wouldn't misus

More ›