yohanatan

5 ms·

1.
by yohanatan 12y ago
Only if you are inside the cult could you possibly have that opinion. Do you also think that Jim Jones was an expert on the New Testament teachings? If you take his word for it, of course he was.
2.
by yohanatan 12y ago
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8605321
3.
by yohanatan 12y ago
I think the right way to think about that is: "what solutions has lack of generics prevented me from writing?". From the expressive end of the power continuum, Go is way down there (somewhere below Blub probably). http:/&#x2
4.
by yohanatan 12y ago
The portion of that material which is requisite is obviously a strict subset of the entirety of the material. But, for one to flippantly say "I've read it" without even establishing what "it" is, seems a bit dismiss
5.
by yohanatan 12y ago
If this area is going to be marked off, then I would appreciate my mod points being restored as well. If you look at my original response, it was pointing out the fallacy in a very particular claim (and nothing resembling a 'flame war&
6.
by yohanatan 12y ago
To the siblings to this post: it seems rather unlikely as the research is being generated at a rate that far exceeds any one person's ability to read it (especially when they are already busy marrying C and CSP [which is easy to build
7.
by yohanatan 12y ago
Totally serious. And, it's not just the lack of generics-- that's just the tip of the iceberg.
8.
by yohanatan 12y ago
Probably a combination of both really. I get the sense that the 'Commander' hasn't done the requisite reading.
9.
by yohanatan 12y ago
Nope, nothing at all like that.
10.
by yohanatan 12y ago
There is an encoding supporting that level of abstraction (perhaps though not as straightforward as you'd prefer); namely using interfaces (which are first-class) to encode module signatures. See: https://gist.github.com&#x2
11.
by yohanatan 12y ago
We don't have to encode arbitrarily large natural numbers. Rather we have to encode the rules that allow us to construct them (which is quite simple actually). And, I think 'digital physics' is more compatible with Incomp
12.
by yohanatan 12y ago
I see this as a last ditch attempt by Microsoft to stay semi-relevant. Of course this was the great promise of .NET to begin with, but it seems rather late to exercise the option now (some 15 years or so after .NET was created)-- a very des
13.
by yohanatan 12y ago
> F# has a number of these specific implementations but they're kind of "hard-coded" in the language rather than fully extensible. That's not true. You can extend the language yourself with "computation expressio
14.
by yohanatan 12y ago
The operators on collections always have alternate named forms. I actually instinctively skip over the operators when perusing the documentation and have no trouble at all finding what I need.
15.
by yohanatan 12y ago
I think a succinct way to put it is: on-the-fly "profile-guided optimization". A good JITter will do this automatically (as you said).
16.
by yohanatan 12y ago
Downvoters: if you disagree, feel free to post an attempt at a refutation or somehow otherwise explain your vote.
17.
by yohanatan 12y ago
Not to be 'that guy'TM but I think your last sentence is missing at least a word. Also, there are comma splices throughout. :) [Maybe that was the real reason you had trouble finding a job writing]. [just kidding] :)
18.
by yohanatan 12y ago
Downvoters: if you disagree, feel free to post an attempt at a refutation or somehow otherwise explain your vote.
19.
by yohanatan 12y ago
But the reals are irrelevant as far as Incompleteness is concerned. He's obviously confused.
20.
by yohanatan 12y ago
I'm not so sure that the pharaoh in the background was impressed.
21.
by yohanatan 12y ago
It doesn't take 'infinite complexity' [your term] to encode the natural numbers. Rather it is only a handful of axioms. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_recursive_arithmetic Pretty much any sy
22.
by yohanatan 12y ago
That premise is definitely true. It is a result of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. 'Physics' certainly satisfies the constraint: 'of sufficient complexity to encode the natural numbers'. See: http://user
23.
by yohanatan 12y ago
Rust is not your typical lower-level language though. It supports a lot of the features that functional programmers expect. It is an eagerly evaluated language that lets you drop to 'unsafe' code where necessary but in its natural
24.
by yohanatan 12y ago
There are several languages targeting the JVM these days. And, what obviously sets Clojure apart from other JVM languages is its Lispiness (i.e., the JVM is constant across JVM languages). Clojure is not married to the JVM either-- in fact,
25.
by yohanatan 12y ago
I think the same is true for F# and Scala.
26.
by yohanatan 12y ago
> Even worse than the problem of uncommon concepts as monads Just go ahead and learn the typeclass hierarchy and such-- it really is quite a useful higher level of abstraction in whatever language you choose. And it definitely will enter
27.
by yohanatan 12y ago
> I agree Haskell has had an important influence, but I don't see why people would necessarily "go directly" to it because of that. I also said "or one of its direct descendants" (like Agda or Idris in all likeli
28.
by yohanatan 12y ago
> I could not agree more with your first paragraph. The only other language I've used that I've had that experience with was Haskell, and while there are good arguments to be made for using Haskell in production, it should be o
29.
by yohanatan 12y ago
A hybrid multi-layer cache system would likely be more cost effective and still perform nearly as well as dedicated RAM (depending on how the data is structured/sharded/queried).
30.
by yohanatan 12y ago
I have a similar idea where the cores are put to work optimizing the produced binaries (profile-guided optimization, genetic algorithms, SAT solvers/theorem proving, etc). You could of course also do static analysis and all forms of te

More ›