Warwolt

7 ms·

1.
by Warwolt 1mo ago
How would you do layouting without a tree structure in place? Not really sure what you're getting at here
2.
by Warwolt 2mo ago
Nice article! Having little interactive examples I think is fantastic, and makes the text really utilize it's medium well. The text was mostly a refresher for me who already knew the subject, but I would heartily recommend it to collea
3.
by Warwolt 5mo ago
Can someone give a tl;dr? Feels like a whole lot of preamble in the article
4.
by Warwolt 6mo ago
That's not a good analogy. A good mathematician isn't necessarily dealing with calculations, i.e. long division, but rather with proof. No-ones becomes a good mathematician without first learning to write simple proofs, and then l
5.
by Warwolt 6mo ago
Actually, I think this is a case where LLMS _can_ be useful. If we're prompting for small enough outputs, for examples around things we can already sort of reason about it, we're able to judge whether or not what's presented
6.
by Warwolt 6mo ago
Unfortunately in the majority of organizations, the idiots are at the wheels. It's not people with actual experience of how engineers do things, that dictates what those engineers should do.
7.
by Warwolt 9mo ago
But common, collouqialy "Garbage Collection" as a language feature refers to a run time garbage collector. Saying that the language has GC just because it has opt-in reference counting is needlessly pedantic
8.
by Warwolt 9mo ago
> they either must be bought at an increasing steep price
9.
by Warwolt 11mo ago
It's a variable simply because it doesn't refer to a specific object, but any object assigned to it as either function argument or by result of a computation. It's in fact us programmers who are the odd ones out compared to h
10.
by Warwolt 11mo ago
Making a distinction between pure and effectful functions doesnt require any kind of effect system though. Having a language where "func" defines a pure function and "proc" defines a procedure that can performed arbitrar
11.
by Warwolt 1y ago
Who cares? That's just semantics. If we define science as the systematic search for truths, then mathematics and logic are the paradigmic sciences. If we define it as only empirical search for truth then perhaps that excludes mathemati
12.
by Warwolt 1y ago
To be fair, presumably debug printig could be "escaped" from the effect type checking if the designer of an effect system would want it. For instance, debug printig in Haskell completely sidesteps the need for the IO Monad and jus
13.
by Warwolt 1y ago
Ease of definition doesn't equate ease of measurement..
14.
by Warwolt 1y ago
My issues stems from me feeling like a lot of terminology introduced by the author ending up being used in different ways in different paragraphs. It didn't feel like a thought through whole, and I felt somewhat punished for trying to
15.
by Warwolt 1y ago
While the tools you talk about sound interesting, to me this was more about an in-principle possible measurement rather than something we'd actually carry out. I think stating that "more stuff" in the program code and in the
16.
by Warwolt 1y ago
I think model theory is a really good source of theory to ground the notion of modules. The relation between an interface and an implementation to me is very much the same as between a formal theory and a model of that theory. I agree that
17.
by Warwolt 1y ago
I mean, we can definitively talk about simplicity/complexity in a fairly easy way when it comes to mathematical structures or data structures in my opinion. For instance, a binary tree that contains just a root node is clearly simpler
18.
by Warwolt 1y ago
I should've noted that, although I found it frustrating, I think it's a good read for most programmers. There are many excellent ideas in the book.
19.
by Warwolt 1y ago
I'm very mathematically inclined, so I would probably want a "proper" treatment of this subject to include both formal logic, set theory, type theory and model theory, but they're also subjects I'm still familiarizi
20.
by Warwolt 1y ago
I found "A philosophy of software design" to be a well intended but somewhat frustrating book to read. It seemingly develops a theory of software architecture that is getting at some reasonable stuff, but does so without any refer
21.
by Warwolt 1y ago
Looks nice! Is there any plans on a language server and formatting tooling? Usually I feel like that's bare minimum before I'd like to try and play around with a language
22.
by Warwolt 1y ago
When a bug like this can cause real world harm, we can't just bumper car program our way out of things. As engineers we should be able to provide real guarantees.
23.
by Warwolt 1y ago
Types give you static proof where tests only give partial inductive evidence. I cannot _fathom_ why people would prefer tests over types where types do the job, outside anything but sheer ignorance.
24.
by Warwolt 1y ago
Isn't this just the newtype pattern?
25.
by Warwolt 1y ago
To be fair, the fact that the IO Monad is in fact a monad is a sort of quality of life solution. Monads themselves don't have any side effect implications
26.
by Warwolt 2y ago
Something about the website is melting my phone while trying to read the article. I think it's maybe those animations? Couldn't finish reading because the tab froze
27.
by Warwolt 2y ago
It's a quote that originated as a paraphrase of Einstein about applying Occam's razor to development of scientific theories. Things should be as simple as possible, with respect to your criteria. E.g. a scientific theory should po
28.
by Warwolt 2y ago
Yes, it's a pretty good book. I'm somewhat annoyed at the book _sometimes_ speaking in general terms applicable to any paradigm, and then sometimes speaking in very OOP centric terms. It's still a worthwhile read.
29.
by Warwolt 2y ago
I read this book with some colleagues at a work book club, and I think it's interesting how split the opinion on the book is among readers. My impression is that there's some good ideas in the book, but it suffers from not being t
30.
by Warwolt 2y ago
Your own words betray you. Pinning down the details of your requirements is _exactly_ the act of choosing the correct level of abstraction. When picking out what matters for correct behavior, and what doesn't, you are defining an abst

More ›