yoklov

75 ms·

721.
by yoklov 15y ago
He's quoting Shakespeare. As far as a historical account is concerned, you're more correct, but not entirely so. Suetonius mentions that some claim Julius Caesar uttered those words as he died, however his ultimate conclusion was that Caes
722.
by yoklov 15y ago
I might be wrong, but I don't think the question is "will Facebook be overturned by another social network?" so much as it is "are social networks even profitable?"
723.
by yoklov 15y ago
Specifically of the memoization technique known as dynamic programming.
724.
by yoklov 15y ago
Why would Google want to fragment its userbase by having to separate classes of accounts, Google+ accounts and regular ol' Google accounts. That would be lamer.
725.
by yoklov 15y ago
In a system with dynamic scoping, you have access to variables which otherwise you might not. If it were written in scheme, it might be more difficult to know how many buffers are currently open or some other text-editory value than it is
726.
by yoklov 15y ago
I see, I had forgotten about that, but it's not exactly polymorphism, right?
727.
by yoklov 15y ago
At least in functional programming, some things just happen to be case analyses, and there ain't much you can do to get around it. Consider the following (scheme) definition for the ``eval'' function. (This is a conditional and not a case
728.
by yoklov 15y ago
Plausible, but an improvement to the algorithm could (equally plausibly) bring in enough new customers to offset any, uh, damage.
729.
by yoklov 15y ago
That's an interesting observation, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who has thought this. From what I've seen (as an emacs user, and a functional programmer), typically people in the FP camp tend to use emacs, and people in the imperative
730.
by yoklov 15y ago
I suspect he means keyboard macros, as opposed to macros defined in emacs lisp using forms like defmacro. Keyboard macros allow you to record an arbitrary sequence of actions, whereas lisp macros allow you to perform arbitrary transformati
731.
by yoklov 15y ago
Welcome to the dll hell-style package management system of hackage.
732.
by yoklov 15y ago
Typically I've found that they ask first, however even that is annoying. I don't want growl support, and I haven't wanted growl support in a very long time. I've yet to see a use case for it that didn't seem bent on interrupting the user wi
733.
by yoklov 15y ago
https://gist.github.com/1311342 I started this a few weeks ago after rereading sicp chapter 4 and realizing that it made more sense this time around. Some of the most fun I've ever had with programming (though I haven't been doing it very
734.
by yoklov 15y ago
The downside of Haskell is that performing mutations is more difficult than with traditional imperative or object oriented languages, as monads take some time to get used to. That said, it's a wonderfully elegant and expressive language, an
735.
by yoklov 15y ago
I agree with fferen, GIMP may be more powerful, but it is far less usable, in my experience.
736.
by yoklov 15y ago
Same thing happened to me while I was testing it out, page crashed so there's no error message for me to paste from dev. console.
737.
by yoklov 15y ago
Is it true that Python has dynamic scoping? I would have thought that it was lexical...
738.
by yoklov 15y ago
The difference between Scheme and any "Turing complete language", is the philosophy behind it, which is one of minimalism. That's why memoization isn't implemented for you. Scheme was also designed to encourage implementing non-recursive c
739.
by yoklov 15y ago
The implementation of tables that he uses isn't actually reasonable for most use. If actually implementing memoization, one would probably use SFRI-44 style maps, which come with a 'contains-key' function that solves this problem.
740.
by yoklov 15y ago
The point of Scheme isn't to provide you with a given feature like memoization, its to provide you with the tools so you can do it yourself. SICP covers memoization at the end chapter 3.3.3 ( http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/boo
741.
by yoklov 15y ago
You're often right, however, the markdown spec supports nested lists, so just throwing them out (or making them far, far more difficult to understand) under the pretense that you're organizing your data poorly and should do it differently i
742.
by yoklov 15y ago
You know, I actually thought about mentioning that it wasn't quite exactly the same, but decided against because I really do think that it's still quicksort. Is it identical? No, you're right, it's not. But it still is an expression of t
743.
by yoklov 15y ago
Agreed, but just because: Quicksort in Haskell: quicksort [] = [] quicksort (x:xs) = quicksort front ++ [x] ++ quicksort behind where front = filter (<= x) xs behind = filter (> x) xs
744.
by yoklov 15y ago
It took me a while to realize, but monads are a great solution to the problem of state (to mention just one thing). Now that I've gotten used to them though, it sucks not having them in (many) other languages... Haskell has spoiled me :(.
745.
by yoklov 15y ago
I still use it, and most of my friends still use it, though I suspect that using it solely for the statistics probably makes me (well, my friends too) an odd man out. The only time I've ever considered switching was when I was debating writ
746.
by yoklov 15y ago
I've been using GNOME 3 on Fedora 15 for a while now and I'm pretty pleased with it, that being said, it's far from perfect. There are several interface choices they've made that remove what I would consider obviously desirable functionalit