| 2026-01-23 00:02:18 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2026-01-23 00:03:18 +0100 | __monty__ | (~toonn@user/toonn) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2026-01-23 00:04:51 +0100 | zanetti | (~zanetti@2804:7f0:9b80:2edc:c121:46e7:c35f:46cf) zanetti |
| 2026-01-23 00:13:09 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-23 00:14:16 +0100 | <jackdk> | Perhaps most approachable free intro. Optics By Example is worth the price. |
| 2026-01-23 00:18:12 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-93-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2026-01-23 00:18:26 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-93-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) |
| 2026-01-23 00:20:24 +0100 | <chromoblob> | how the fuck are you supposed to write Haskell without recursion |
| 2026-01-23 00:20:25 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-01-23 00:20:52 +0100 | <chromoblob> | and how is Haskell without recursion supposed to be useful |
| 2026-01-23 00:23:28 +0100 | <geekosaur> | I think tht usually means without _explicit_ recursion, e.g. using folds/traverses |
| 2026-01-23 00:28:53 +0100 | zanetti | (~zanetti@2804:7f0:9b80:2edc:c121:46e7:c35f:46cf) (Quit: Konversation terminated!) |
| 2026-01-23 00:33:34 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-93-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2026-01-23 00:34:08 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-93-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) |
| 2026-01-23 00:34:18 +0100 | <jreicher> | chromoblob: who's saying you should write Haskell without recursion? |
| 2026-01-23 00:34:30 +0100 | Hafydd | (~Hafydd@user/hafydd) (Quit: WeeChat 4.8.1) |
| 2026-01-23 00:40:35 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) humasect |
| 2026-01-23 00:42:00 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-01-23 00:47:48 +0100 | RMSBach | (~RMSBach@24.210.9.182) RMSBach |
| 2026-01-23 00:50:23 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-23 00:50:25 +0100 | vanishingideal | (~vanishing@user/vanishingideal) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-01-23 00:51:03 +0100 | vanishingideal | (~vanishing@user/vanishingideal) vanishingideal |
| 2026-01-23 00:55:03 +0100 | Hafydd | (~Hafydd@user/hafydd) Hafydd |
| 2026-01-23 00:56:36 +0100 | Square3 | (~Square4@user/square) Square |
| 2026-01-23 01:00:06 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2026-01-23 01:10:11 +0100 | <EvanR> | the answer the question, certain patterns of recursion can be encapulsated in combinators that magically have the same effect |
| 2026-01-23 01:10:13 +0100 | <EvanR> | to |
| 2026-01-23 01:10:31 +0100 | <EvanR> | e.g. map and fold |
| 2026-01-23 01:10:42 +0100 | <EvanR> | they can't do everything, but the more such tools you have the more you can do |
| 2026-01-23 01:10:58 +0100 | <EvanR> | but sometimes explicit recursion makes more sense |
| 2026-01-23 01:11:28 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-23 01:16:39 +0100 | <probie> | how are imperative languages without goto supposed to be useful? |
| 2026-01-23 01:16:39 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2026-01-23 01:25:31 +0100 | Zemy_ | (~Zemy@2600:100c:b0ab:ed8b:c474:c7ff:febb:8ed3) |
| 2026-01-23 01:27:14 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-23 01:28:13 +0100 | Zemy | (~Zemy@72.178.108.235) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |