freyrs3

11 ms·

1.
by freyrs3 6y ago
You have to appreciate the audacity of some of the portfolio companies in Fund I for getting away hilariously bad business models. They literally fleeced Chris Dixon into funding Pied Piper (dfinity.org) and crypto kittens and he actually b
2.
by freyrs3 6y ago
Showing how Yang-Mills and SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) fall out would be a natural starting point for a proposed unification theory. This model doesn't even try explain the existing particle hierarchy as a special case.
3.
At a Tech Bootcamp, World Domination Is Put on Hold for Profit(bostinno.streetwise.co)
2 points by freyrs3 10y ago|0 comments
4.
by freyrs3 11y ago
> Ain’t that cool? Oh it is! Now never use this.
5.
by freyrs3 11y ago
If you want a description of the monad laws in Haskell terms you can Google and find like 80 expositions on the topic of various depths. If you want a mathematical exposition. "Category Theory" by Awodey page 265 is a concise desc
6.
by freyrs3 11y ago
Their usage in Haskell/OCaml etc is precisely faithful to their category theoretic definitions as can be in a general purpose language. This debate about naming monads is pretty tiresome after so many years, if one called it "comp
7.
by freyrs3 11y ago
> The way this problem manifests in Haskell is in how incredibly clever it makes you feel to get something done in it. Haskell is different enough from most languages that everything feels like an achievement when writing it. “Look, I us
8.
by freyrs3 12y ago
It has two different parsings: avoid (success at all costs) (avoid success) at all costs The first is more apt description of Haskell's design, the later is more of a joke.
9.
by freyrs3 12y ago
It's not a hot technology ( read as overhyped ), but if you're in the analytics space and not using Python/PyData tooling then definitely check that out. It's certainly as mature, if not more so than R.
10.
by freyrs3 12y ago
The academic type theory mentioned in this post is not really terribly important to implementing type systems for general purpose languages. There's this growing divide between the engineering discipline of type systems in general lang
11.
by freyrs3 12y ago
Strictly speaking Hindley-Milner is the type system that itself admits tractable inference using the usual unification techniques via the Damas-Milner family of algorithms. Gradual typing itself uses type inference in the Damas-Milner famil
12.
by freyrs3 12y ago
Wadler's Law: https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Wadler%27s_Law In any language design, the total time spent discussing a feature in this list is proportional to two raised to the power of its posit
13.
by freyrs3 12y ago
There were some interesting attempts trying to adapt LLVM's precise GC to Haskell's GC model and the difficulties with this approach: http://lhc-compiler.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-llvm-probably-w...
14.
by freyrs3 12y ago
This is extremely well done, thanks for taking the time to make a screencast.
15.
by freyrs3 12y ago
The elephant in the room in these discussions is that the cost of bringing a function compiler to fruition is so high that too much of the discussion gets muddled in the semantics of these hypothetical Haskell-successor languages while no o
16.
by freyrs3 12y ago
Might as well start worrying about an airborne mutation of HIV while we're at it. Wouldn't start heading for the bunker just yet.
17.
by freyrs3 12y ago
I can't even begin to parse what you're trying to say or how it relates to my last comment.
18.
by freyrs3 12y ago
Quite sure, in a dynamically typed language there is only a single static type inhabited by all values. If the compiler is reasoning about classes of values at runtime then it does indeed have nothing to do with static typing.
19.
by freyrs3 12y ago
> When is a language untyped There's the formal definition of type and there's the colloquial definition of type. A type in the context of the article means a formal type, it is an syntactic classifier that is part of the stati
20.
by freyrs3 12y ago
Because you've defined "safety" to encompass several orthogonal concepts and as such is meaningless. If you look at each axis on it's own ( type safety, memory safety, exceptional safety ) then Haskell will come out as s
21.
by freyrs3 12y ago
Safety as you're using is not the concept that Haskeller's refer to when they talk about the language. "Type safety" is a very precise term that refers to several proofs about the semantics of the language. See: http:&#
22.
by freyrs3 12y ago
The complaints in the article don't really generalize at all. It seems to just be a rant about why targeting the JVM from a functional language can yield non optimal code without certain program transformations. Haskell and OCaml don&#
23.
by freyrs3 12y ago
There is an ambient culture of code reuse at a level I don't see elsewhere, that's one of Haskell's strength's in my opinion. Though it does make certain packaging problems more difficult.
24.
by freyrs3 12y ago
Wouldn't say that the community is gravitating toward Nix, it's kind of a false split since Cabal and Nix can only be used together and Nix can't replace cabal. Though Nix can be used to manage a wider package environment tha
25.
by freyrs3 12y ago
Oh, we most certainly do have a choice, especially as developers. If enough of us don't support their infrastructure or buy their products then we most certainly can effect change and their bottom-line. Don't be upset and powerles
26.
by freyrs3 12y ago
It is more difficult. By design Haskell shifts an enormous number of failure modes to compile-time and as such cabal gets an unnecessary amount of blame for library bugs. If you ``pip install`` a package that transitively dependencies on an
27.
by freyrs3 12y ago
Like many people have pointed out, cabal and npm are not solving the same problem. npm appears to "work" more often because a whole class of problems in Javascript program are deferred to runtime while in Haskell all interfaces ha
28.
by freyrs3 12y ago
If the core developers have committed to remaining C-ABI compatible with py3 until 2023 then there's basically no way anyone could fix the GIL. It would mean breaking ABI compatibility on the garbage collector and the interpreter. I
29.
by freyrs3 12y ago
You'd end up building a small functional runtime. That's a fun project to understand compilers better. But given that Haskell types are erased at runtime the very thing that makes monads monads wouldn't even be around anymore
30.
by freyrs3 12y ago
I try to put myself in the mind of someone who works in a language in which type notions like ( t : * -> * ) and ( a -> t b ) are completely inexpressible I can see how it can be hard to wrap your head around monads. I think a lot of

More ›