Newest at the top
| 2024-05-12 11:57:58 +0200 | sandbag | (~syscall@user/sandbag) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2024-05-12 11:54:04 +0200 | euleritian | (~euleritia@ip-185-104-138-51.ptr.icomera.net) |
| 2024-05-12 11:52:58 +0200 | euleritian | (~euleritia@dynamic-176-001-002-149.176.1.pool.telefonica.de) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2024-05-12 11:50:27 +0200 | mailman | (~mailman@116.71.176.122) |
| 2024-05-12 11:49:20 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2024-05-12 11:47:23 +0200 | mei | (~mei@user/mei) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2024-05-12 11:43:29 +0200 | troydm | (~troydm@user/troydm) |
| 2024-05-12 11:38:09 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl) |
| 2024-05-12 11:37:43 +0200 | khumba | (~khumba@user/khumba) () |
| 2024-05-12 11:37:24 +0200 | mailman | (~mailman@116.71.176.122) (Client Quit) |
| 2024-05-12 11:36:27 +0200 | mailman | (~mailman@116.71.176.122) |
| 2024-05-12 11:36:00 +0200 | mailman | (~mailman@116.71.176.122) (Client Quit) |
| 2024-05-12 11:33:37 +0200 | mailman | (~mailman@116.71.176.122) |
| 2024-05-12 11:31:45 +0200 | brox66 | (~brox66@user/brox66) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2024-05-12 11:30:07 +0200 | mailman | (~mailman@116.71.176.122) (Client Quit) |
| 2024-05-12 11:29:00 +0200 | mailman | (~mailman@116.71.176.122) |
| 2024-05-12 11:28:15 +0200 | mailman1 | (~mailman1@116.71.176.122) (Client Quit) |
| 2024-05-12 11:27:56 +0200 | euleritian | (~euleritia@dynamic-176-001-002-149.176.1.pool.telefonica.de) |
| 2024-05-12 11:26:11 +0200 | euleritian | (~euleritia@ip-185-104-138-28.ptr.icomera.net) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2024-05-12 11:23:46 +0200 | mailman1 | (~mailman1@116.71.176.122) |
| 2024-05-12 11:23:44 +0200 | troydm | (~troydm@user/troydm) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2024-05-12 11:22:28 +0200 | brox66 | (~brox66@user/brox66) |
| 2024-05-12 11:20:11 +0200 | Sgeo_ | (~Sgeo@user/sgeo) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2024-05-12 11:19:36 +0200 | <mauke> | ^ like this thing. just two lines of code, fairly short; doesn't use any crazy language extensions; and yet ... wtf even is that |
| 2024-05-12 11:19:09 +0200 | <Hecate> | glguy: do you accept compat PRs for https://github.com/glguy/language-lua ? I need to work with GHC 9.8 |
| 2024-05-12 11:18:55 +0200 | <mauke> | loeb :: Functor f => f (f a -> a) -> f a; loeb x = y where y = fmap (\f -> f y) x |
| 2024-05-12 11:17:38 +0200 | <sandbag> | i never really understood the importance of OOP. it is just there to complicate things |
| 2024-05-12 11:16:43 +0200 | <sandbag> | mauke: absolutely! java is extremely verbose |
| 2024-05-12 11:16:12 +0200 | <sandbag> | oh, that's interesting |
| 2024-05-12 11:16:06 +0200 | <mauke> | java is also famous for being needlessly verbose |
| 2024-05-12 11:15:19 +0200 | <mauke> | to me, haskell is unique because you can stack abstractions on top of each other to create absolutely brain-breaking code in 3 or 4 lines |
| 2024-05-12 11:14:51 +0200 | <sandbag> | mauke: yeah, perl as well. so is it mostly from C or some other language? |
| 2024-05-12 11:13:07 +0200 | <mauke> | which also applies to perl |
| 2024-05-12 11:12:49 +0200 | <mauke> | I'd say what python and haskell have in common is fairly high-level abstractions (no need for explicit or manual memory allocation, for example) and an ecosystem of reusable modules |
| 2024-05-12 11:12:35 +0200 | <sandbag> | mauke: absolutely. |
| 2024-05-12 11:11:28 +0200 | <sandbag> | [Leary]: true |
| 2024-05-12 11:10:59 +0200 | <sandbag> | for python, I can understand because of lots of abstraction. is it similar in haskell? |
| 2024-05-12 11:10:51 +0200 | <mauke> | depends on the task and the language |
| 2024-05-12 11:10:14 +0200 | <sandbag> | functional languages do look a bit similar to python (mostly syntax and less amount of code). if you look at C or Go, you are writing a lot of code. but in python or haskell, it's less |
| 2024-05-12 11:10:14 +0200 | <[Leary]> | The MLs do share Haskell's parametric polymorphism and some syntax, but Haskell being both pure and lazy is somewhat of an island; there are no widely used programming languages that are genuinely similar. |
| 2024-05-12 11:09:39 +0200 | <mauke> | but not lazy and not pure (ad-hoc side effects allowed everywhere) |
| 2024-05-12 11:08:56 +0200 | <mauke> | very similar syntax and type system |
| 2024-05-12 11:08:53 +0200 | <sandbag> | ah, that's great. i will pick it up after writing some haskell |
| 2024-05-12 11:08:02 +0200 | <mauke> | pretty similar in many ways |
| 2024-05-12 11:07:54 +0200 | <sandbag> | btw, completely offtopic but is ocaml similar to haskell or completely different? |
| 2024-05-12 11:06:41 +0200 | <sandbag> | that's interesting |
| 2024-05-12 11:06:21 +0200 | <mauke> | or in our case, to eliminate the need for naming arguments in lambda functions |
| 2024-05-12 11:06:09 +0200 | <mauke> | "Combinatory logic is a notation to eliminate the need for quantified variables in mathematical logic." |
| 2024-05-12 11:06:09 +0200 | mikess | (~mikess@user/mikess) (Quit: mikess) |
| 2024-05-12 11:06:03 +0200 | <sandbag> | i will resume my journey on functional programming |