bedman12345

5 ms·

1.
by bedman12345 2mo ago
Could you explain what practical research there is to be done? The heavy theory I know does not seem to be very useful in practice. Optimal join algorithms, Yannakakis adjacent algorithms, tree decomposition of queries all seem to be worse
2.
by bedman12345 2mo ago
Which database companies have research labs? AFAIK amazon, snowflake, databricks, google and SAP don’t have a research lab dedicated to databases. They have some people that are paid to do research but there does not seem to be an IBM Almad
3.
by bedman12345 1y ago
> And yet terms like "elegant" have no objective definition. Why does that matter? You seem to really think one needs objective definitions? It should be clear that whether a definition is objective or not is subjective itself
4.
by bedman12345 1y ago
> You claim things as being inherently hard to read and understand. I don’t. > But this is a matter of one's personal context and experience. There are things that I'd find hard to read that you would not, and vice versa. Ob
5.
by bedman12345 1y ago
True. My statements are meaningful because of that. The objective measures we could agree on are obvious, so they need not to be stated. The heart of the debate is about the things that are hard to measure. As most things in software engine
6.
by bedman12345 1y ago
> The Haskell looks much better, and I don't even know Haskell Plain crazy take. The c example uses basic coding to implement some clever maths with special fast instructions. Thehaskell example is just some dumb algo implemented wi
7.
by bedman12345 1y ago
It’s slow. Example: quicksort [] = [] quicksort (p:xs) = (quicksort lesser) ++ [p] ++ (quicksort greater) where lesser = filter (< p) xs greater = filter (>= p) xs It’s really complicated. Everybody includes lenses
8.
by bedman12345 1y ago
Man I hate functional programming so much. Please, to anyone reading this. Don’t waste your time on this stuff. They always try to claim functional code makes things safer and more elegant, but I have never seen that in reality. These ideas
9.
by bedman12345 2y ago
> Could you imagine people saying the issue with Java is its extremism towards objects and method calls? I think exactly that all the time. It’s ridiculous. > That's a problem no haskell user has, honestly. I had this problem all
10.
by bedman12345 2y ago
I’ve been working with pure functional languages and custom lisp dialects professionally my whole tenure. You get a whole bag of problems for a very subjective upside. Teams fragment into those that know how to work with these fringe tools
11.
by bedman12345 2y ago
An example of how to use the io monad for simulations https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... It’s one of the nicer to read ones I’ve seen. Still is terrible imo.
12.
by bedman12345 2y ago
Most database companies run only a small amount of tests before committing. After committing, you run tests for thousands of hours. It sucks. You probably do this all day every day. You just run the tests on whatever you have currently comm
13.
Declarative Programming is a business model
3 points by bedman12345 3y ago|2 comments
14.
by bedman12345 4y ago
You simply use "intuitive mathematics", in other words: no formalization. That's at least what I got when I read books on set theory. Löwenheim-Skolem implies the existence of a countable model of ZFC. https://en.m
15.
by bedman12345 4y ago
Yeah but second order logic itself is incomplete. ZFC doesn't have a single model, too, btw. In the end unprovable sentences exist because there are multiple models satisfying your axioms.
16.
by bedman12345 4y ago
True, but if you add too many axioms, the resulting set of axioms will not be computable anymore. If you allow your set of axioms to not be computable you can of course just use the set of statements that are true for whatever model of the
17.
by bedman12345 5y ago
This is a mischaracterisation of gödels incompleteness theorem. The set of axioms the theorem is about isn't even mentioned in the article. This is very important. If you pick the empty set as your axioms, most statements will be indep