Newest at the top
| 2024-05-21 20:12:33 +0200 | <dolio> | That's probably not the only reason. |
| 2024-05-21 20:11:29 +0200 | <monochrom> | The fact that Haskell FFI works best if Haskell code leave OS-sanctioned stack alone (so C code can use it unconfused) so ghc-generated code uses another register and another memory area for Haskell stack. |
| 2024-05-21 20:11:16 +0200 | <mauke> | lxsameer: I like direct-sqlite. no built-in support for migrations, but pretty trivial to add IMHO. depends on what you expect from a migration feature |
| 2024-05-21 20:11:01 +0200 | Guest86 | (~Guest86@186.82.99.37) |
| 2024-05-21 20:07:52 +0200 | <monochrom> | ghc-generated code looks different from gcc-generated code because of better reasons than this. Evaluation order. Heap system. Closures. How they decide to use registers. |
| 2024-05-21 20:06:08 +0200 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) |
| 2024-05-21 20:05:01 +0200 | <EvanR> | this calls for a closed cartesian comics on this subject |
| 2024-05-21 20:03:53 +0200 | <monochrom> | And in the latter case, furthermore, "push" is narrated as "pass a parameter". |
| 2024-05-21 20:03:50 +0200 | dtman34 | (~dtman34@2601:447:d001:ed50:ebe5:b36d:357b:8a39) |
| 2024-05-21 20:02:54 +0200 | <monochrom> | If you see a "push <code address>", it can be narrated as "push return address", but it can just as well be narrated as "push address of continuation". Same difference. |
| 2024-05-21 20:02:49 +0200 | <dolio> | The stack is the continuation. |
| 2024-05-21 20:02:36 +0200 | <EvanR> | care to explain how they are the same |
| 2024-05-21 20:01:38 +0200 | <monochrom> | I no longer distinguish continuation passing from call stack. |
| 2024-05-21 19:54:26 +0200 | <lxsameer> | hey folks, what lib do you recommend for using sqlite? Supporting db migrations is a plus |
| 2024-05-21 19:53:54 +0200 | lxsameer | (~lxsameer@Serene/lxsameer) |
| 2024-05-21 19:53:43 +0200 | raehik | (~raehik@rdng-25-b2-v4wan-169990-cust1344.vm39.cable.virginm.net) |
| 2024-05-21 19:51:56 +0200 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-05-21 19:47:31 +0200 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) |
| 2024-05-21 19:43:48 +0200 | Guest86 | (~Guest41@186.82.99.37) () |
| 2024-05-21 19:43:21 +0200 | Guest86 | (~Guest41@186.82.99.37) |
| 2024-05-21 19:40:57 +0200 | jstolarek | (~jstolarek@staticline-31-183-174-191.toya.net.pl) |
| 2024-05-21 19:33:42 +0200 | rdcdr | (~rdcdr@user/rdcdr) |
| 2024-05-21 19:32:47 +0200 | raehik | (~raehik@rdng-25-b2-v4wan-169990-cust1344.vm39.cable.virginm.net) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2024-05-21 19:32:18 +0200 | <EvanR> | or lack of success |
| 2024-05-21 19:32:06 +0200 | rdcdr | (~rdcdr@user/rdcdr) (Quit: ZNC 1.8.2+deb3.1 - https://znc.in) |
| 2024-05-21 19:31:30 +0200 | <EvanR> | looking at core output can give clues to the success of optimizing |
| 2024-05-21 19:27:39 +0200 | <EvanR> | the translation of haskell into core language is where the magic happens |
| 2024-05-21 19:27:09 +0200 | <EvanR> | the core language has a simplified version of pattern matching which can be implemented like the switch statement in C |
| 2024-05-21 19:26:54 +0200 | ocra8 | (ocra8@user/ocra8) (Quit: WeeChat 4.2.2) |
| 2024-05-21 19:26:37 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl) |
| 2024-05-21 19:23:38 +0200 | <d34df00d> | kuribas: I'm curious then how one might compare some common haskell constructs (think even pattern matching) to what happens in other, more imperative languages. |
| 2024-05-21 19:20:41 +0200 | danse-nr3 | (~danse-nr3@151.43.113.96) |
| 2024-05-21 19:20:35 +0200 | FragByte | (~christian@user/fragbyte) |
| 2024-05-21 19:20:23 +0200 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2024-05-21 19:20:03 +0200 | euleritian | (~euleritia@ip4d16fc38.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) |
| 2024-05-21 19:19:46 +0200 | euleritian | (~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-196-082.176.6.pool.telefonica.de) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2024-05-21 19:18:39 +0200 | FragByte | (~christian@user/fragbyte) (Quit: Quit) |
| 2024-05-21 19:18:15 +0200 | Guest62 | (~Guest54@1.240.117.251) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2024-05-21 19:17:10 +0200 | <EvanR> | too real |
| 2024-05-21 19:15:32 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2024-05-21 19:12:55 +0200 | euleritian | (~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-196-082.176.6.pool.telefonica.de) |
| 2024-05-21 19:12:53 +0200 | dtman34 | (~dtman34@c-75-72-163-222.hsd1.mn.comcast.net) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2024-05-21 19:12:20 +0200 | euleritian | (~euleritia@ip4d16fc38.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-05-21 19:12:15 +0200 | <Rembane> | Proof by flex! |
| 2024-05-21 19:11:37 +0200 | chele | (~chele@user/chele) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-05-21 19:11:29 +0200 | <systemfault> | I bench press more so I'm right? |
| 2024-05-21 19:10:09 +0200 | <ncf> | proof by intimidation |
| 2024-05-21 19:09:39 +0200 | <mauke> | I use an old technique called "proof by assertion" |
| 2024-05-21 19:09:25 +0200 | <EvanR> | argument of correctness, ethos pathos logos |
| 2024-05-21 19:08:01 +0200 | <ncf> | that's the statement not the proof |