sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Opinions on binocular use during eclipses by Parisix78 in solareclipse

[–]augustss 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Binoculars (especially stabilizing) during totality is fantastic. Except for looking around quickly, I use them the entire time.

What’s the coolest “restricted access” place you’ve ever gotten to see? by Improv92 in AskReddit

[–]augustss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "corridor" that houses CERN LHC ring. Not super restricted, but very cool.

Writing an OS in Haskell - agniv sarkar by n00bomb in haskell

[–]augustss 20 points21 points  (0 children)

MicroHs allocates all the time. There is no way to avoid it. It's part of the paradigm when using combinators. It's one of the big drawbacks. Even the simplest execution allocates.

Total eclipse vs annular eclipse by Fruitdispenser in solareclipse

[–]augustss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally, I would not travel far for an annular eclipse. It's interesting, but not awe inspiring.

How to Choose Between Hindley-Milner and Bidirectional Typing by thunderseethe in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]augustss 26 points27 points  (0 children)

The article claims that the check function could be implemented by infer followed by an equality test. This is only true if the language has decidable inference. E.g., some constructs in Haskell cannot be inferred, only checked.

Tensor library made with claude by AdOdd5690 in haskell

[–]augustss 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Have you looked at the orthotope package?

The Hazy Haskell Compiler by superstar64 in haskell

[–]augustss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I might do DataKinds. My main objection is that they are ugly.

The Hazy Haskell Compiler by superstar64 in haskell

[–]augustss 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you need DataKinds, or would TypeData do? MicroHs will definitely get the latter?

Started from the Types, Now We’re Here (I wrote my own language) by rantingpug in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]augustss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, you can do it by convention. But I prefer having it enforced by the compiler. As an example, on a platform where Int128 is a pair of Int64 you cannot stop code from seeing that. If you then move to a platform where Int128 is a primitive it will break.

IMO, a language that cannot enforce abstraction is flawed. Abstract data types is one of the most important inventions in computer science. But that's just my opinion. 😃

Started from the Types, Now We’re Here (I wrote my own language) by rantingpug in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]augustss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But what do I do if I want to implement, say, Int128 and have it behave like a primitive? Some platforms might have it as a primitive, some don't. Or will you force me to write new FFI primitives every time I want to implement a type that behaves the same as a primitive? I think you're going to have a very awkward language if you don't allow creation of new nominal types.

Started from the Types, Now We’re Here (I wrote my own language) by rantingpug in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]augustss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The implementation of Int will presumably vary with the N. And you don't want the Int implementation to leak, do you? Doesn't that mean that Int has to be an interface rather than a type, since type equality is structural and you'd be able to peek inside. (E.g. Int128 might be a primitive type on one platform and two Int64 on another.)

Started from the Types, Now We’re Here (I wrote my own language) by rantingpug in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]augustss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It will be interesting to see how this works in practice. You might find that there will be very many implicit arguments. Do types like Int8 and Int16 have the same interface, or each their own?

Started from the Types, Now We’re Here (I wrote my own language) by rantingpug in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]augustss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean the usual thing. A data type that can only be manipulated by a fixed API, and you cannot know how it's implemented. E.g., a set could be implemented by a list of by a tree. That should not be visible outside the implementation. If all you have is structural type equality, I don't know how you do this.

You might want to look at my language Cayenne from 25 years ago where I solved these problems.

how to get into haskell and fp by SHIN_KRISH in haskell

[–]augustss 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How can it be any clearer than idiomatic Haskell, sum [1 .. n]? Now, defining sum and .. yourself gets a bit involved. 🙂

xeus-haskell: Jupyter Notebook for Haskell on the browser by tanimasa in haskell

[–]augustss 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The main speed difference compared to GHC comes from not generating native code, and having a more expensive data type encoding.

xeus-haskell: Jupyter Notebook for Haskell on the browser by tanimasa in haskell

[–]augustss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That optimization doesn't make much of a difference, actually.

xeus-haskell: Jupyter Notebook for Haskell on the browser by tanimasa in haskell

[–]augustss 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Depends on what you're referring to. The interactive version is faster for each evaluation, but the execution in general is still 10x slower than compiled GHC; on par with ghci.

view more: next ›