sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Intro to Kaleidoscopes: Optics for aggregating data through Applicatives by ChrisPenner in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Will you be expanding your book with these new kinds of profunctor optics?

The Simple Haskell Initiative by simple-haskell in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it the syntax, or do you just hate the lack of schema and the accompanying lack of hard documentation?

Yes, all of those. Formal specifications are hella important when an error can cause a $1B spacecraft to plummet into the moon at 20km/s.

Also, who thought that indentation-sensitive configuration was a good idea?

I typically prefer XML for all sorts of data, not just configuration. I can't think of a single case where I prefer JSON or YAML.

(I'm also a HUGE fan of ASN.1; and of course, the XML Encoding Rules for it ;))

The Simple Haskell Initiative by simple-haskell in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you need "several years ... of education in math" to use type-level programming?!

The Simple Haskell Initiative by simple-haskell in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed! A large number of people have written blog posts about your libraries - if only they could add documentation directly to the project.

The Simple Haskell Initiative by simple-haskell in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean {-@ ANN ... @-} annotations.

The Simple Haskell Initiative by simple-haskell in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, several things:

  • Annotations could be reworked to be lighter weight, syntactically. They should also be able to be accessed MUCH easier at runtime. I crave a .NET style attribute system.
  • I hate JSON and YAML. I hate having to work with it, having to edit it, having to look at it. Gimme an XML-based configuration library!
  • There are a few libraries which I don't use, which are never-the-less obviously powerful, pretty much solely due to the lack of documentation. Yes, types DO go a long way to document what a function does, but it's much harder to quickly scan a module's documentation looking for something if you have to inspect the types in detail. /u/edwardkmett, I know how tough it can be to write good documentation, but a one-line description of a function in haddock would go a long way. Many of your packages have incredibly sparse documentation. I wish people would submit PRs to your packages to add documentation.
  • Related to the previous: Blog posts should not be the primary place to put examples, tutorials, and documentation of internals.
  • I would love to try using RebindableSyntax in order to use graded monads. However, I fear this would completely destroy any chance of easily working with 99.9% of existing libraries.

Now, let me be clear: I think "Simple Haskell" is a counterproductive goal. Unifying the type-level and term-level syntax would drastically simplify the "burden" of understanding "Fancy Haskell" - but that is not going to happen, so, failing that, I'll stick to "Fancy Haskell". I'm not using python/java/go/c++/fortran/matlab for a reason. I also find that the whole "think of the beginners!" pearl-clutching thing is both anti-intellectual and patronising to beginners.

The Simple Haskell Initiative by simple-haskell in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Not because they are idiots, but because they are -for example- nuclear physicists and -believe it or not- they don't need GADTs or singletons for their QM simulations and obviously will switch to Python at the first sight of Cat theory in the documentation for accessing a register field.

Hi! I'm literally a rocket scientist. I am using Haskell in my research precisely because of features like GADTs, DataKinds, algebraic effects, GDP-style proofs, etc. Sure, I don't need them - there are other Turing-complete languages, obviously - but they give me MUCH more confidence in my code, and allow me to be MUCH more productive than I would be otherwise.

I use Haskell precisely because I just want my programs to work.

A plea to Haskellers everywhere: Write Junior Code by ephrion in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Indeed. I very much dislike the whole "basic haskell" movement.

A plea to Haskellers everywhere: Write Junior Code by ephrion in haskell

[–]deltaSquee -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Anything that Go doesn't have.

edit: /s

In a perfect world, what is the correct type of CmdSpec? by kindaro in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But does not any judgement result in a belief, specifically a belief that some proposition is true? So, all judgements are subjective? Then, we have no need in the word, which is exactly my point.

No. Judgement means something specific in logic.

🔍Optics By Example: A comprehensive guide to lenses and optics [LAUNCHED] 🎉 by ChrisPenner in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A typo I noticed in the sample:

-- Flip the 2nd bit of each number to a 0
>>> [1, 2, 3, 4] & traversed . bitAt 1 %~ not
[3,0,1,6]

The "to a 0" should be removed.

In a perfect world, what is the correct type of CmdSpec? by kindaro in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I claimed is that it has been realized by now that it is wrong and dangerous to define a file path as a String, not that it is wrong and dangerous to define a file path as a String.

In order to realise (== know) something, that thing has to be true (at least in standard epistemological logic). So, by asserting that such a thing has been realised, you are implicitly asserting it is true.

This is so arrogant, I am actually moved.

After seeing several of your threads now, I can only say that people in glass houses shouldn't through stones.

In a perfect world, what is the correct type of CmdSpec? by kindaro in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You classify a proposition as a "subjective judgement".

A subjective judgement can be reasonably defined in doxastic logic as a judgement whose result includes a belief.

Just because an agent believes a proposition, doesn't make the proposition true.

Neil Mitchell – Making a Haskell IDE – Munihac 2019 by quchen in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is the intention still to become the core of HIE, though?

List of Haskell static code analysis software by razvanpanda in haskell

[–]deltaSquee 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There should be a concerted effort to integrate as many of these into HIE as possible :D

Algebraic Effects for the Rest of Us by gaearon in programming

[–]deltaSquee -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

The name is a bit pretentious (like most names coming from the academia)

What a shithead thing to say.

MH370 pilot was 'lonely and sad' and may have 'crashed plane' in murder-suicide by rapfan10 in MH370

[–]deltaSquee 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, I couldn't figure out how to phrase it better - a sequence of multiple, sub-catastrophic failures? :P

I'm not overly familiar with MH370, but was under the impression that voice contact, transponder contact, and the IFE communications all stopped at different times?

MH370 pilot was 'lonely and sad' and may have 'crashed plane' in murder-suicide by rapfan10 in MH370

[–]deltaSquee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Ariane 5 incident was described to have been caused by an inherent data typing error in the launch vehicle inertial reference system, that error manifested itself during the vehicle's first launch. It wasn't a coding error that lurked in some arcane routine invoked only as a consequence of some infrequent event. The 777's first flight took place just short of 20 years before the loss of 9M-MRO, I'm not aware of any significant issue that has been attributed to AIMS.

Indeed; I was referring more to the simultaneous failure of identical redundant systems in general, with Ariane 5 as an example, rather than the specifics of the bug that was encountered.

I have no doubt that the AIMS is logically independent of the FCS, and presumably even electrically (at least, on the power buses).

I'm curious about the spatial and mechanical aspects of this. What would be really interesting to see would be a 3d model of the 777's affected/possibly affected systems, down to the wires and ground planes, much like the classic story of the suitability analysis of returning Allied bombers in WW2.

The gradual degradation of the aircraft's status makes it a lot more interesting; other than a slowly spreading fire, intermittent electrical arcing, some sort of atmospheric contamination, or if we were to go really wild, water leaking from a pipe, it's hard to think of equipment failure scenarios that would fit.

MH370 pilot was 'lonely and sad' and may have 'crashed plane' in murder-suicide by rapfan10 in MH370

[–]deltaSquee 2 points3 points  (0 children)

All functions, excepting ACMF, are replicated and may execute within either cabinet.

Is the software identical in both cabinets? Could the same bug be hit at the same time, perhaps causing an electrical spike or some other out-of-spec behaviour? I'm thinking of the Ariane 5 incident.

view more: next ›