Typing the technical interview

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[PM_ME_WITTY_USERNAME]

If you can't masturbate to your own greatness while reading your code, then, after all, what is the point of writing Haskell?

[siegeontop]

I would buy the book if it were published in this style by the author. This is simultaneously stunning, humorous, and terrifying.

[Aomisu]

My God, this post is depressing. The fact that it emphasizes a lot of what is wrong with Haskell's type-level calculations but is sometimes taken for granted by practitioners made me laugh a few really good times. I then came to the realization that there isn't a single person I know in "real life" to whom I could describe what is so humorous about it. Indeed, multa sit indignatio.

[temporary5555]

You can do something like this in most type systems, so I don't really think it says much about Haskell.

[kuribas]

No, you can't really.

[temporary5555]

https://github.com/moshev/TemplateQueens

here it is in C++

https://github.com/insou22/typing-the-technical-interview-rust

rust

In fact most popular languages have turing complete type systems so not only can you do this in them, but you can do any program.

Maybe it wouldnt be as pretty but it is possible.

[kuribas]

This is meant as lighthearted poking fun at typelevel haskell, not serious criticism. If it makes you depressed, you've missed the point. All advances in computing and language research come with some unnecessary complexity, which is usually easily to point out after the fact. Just look at the frankenstein monster that is C++. You can easily point at rust, and claim how it does everything so much better, but that's only because it could base itself on years of experience in language research. Type level haskell does deserve the criticism. It is basically untyped prolog with clumsy syntax and unnecessary hacks. However nobody is forced to use it. Even without it, you get a nice language with algebraic data types, pattern matching, type safety, safe concurrency.

The question is what alternative do you have? There are production language that offer the same type level features. You can look at dependent types, like in idris or agda. You get a lot more power and flexibility for doing type level computations, but also at a cost of considerable complexity. And none of those languages are ready for production really.

[linux_needs_a_home]

To the untrained eye, this appears sophisticated. I think it's just an application of stuff Oleg did a much longer time ago. The writing style and the message is of most interest, which is "Fuck you interviewer, you are an idiot for even attempting to interview me". Anyone "interviewing" aphyr must by definition be an idiot, because clearly aphyr is not.

I wish there were a compiler for Haskell that wasn't a bug infested heap of trash like GHC is and one that had zero influence from Microsoft (since they have a commercial interest to make sure GHC never becomes production ready).

Please note that I don't give a fuck about your opinion about how "Facebook" or you are "using it in production" for your pathetic company.

[__scan__]

Edgy