Newest at the top
| 2024-10-06 19:06:12 +0200 | <Inst> | but they'd rather dodge rather than say: 'hi, if you're competent for working on GHC, plz halp" |
| 2024-10-06 19:05:45 +0200 | <Inst> | like, they're desperate to get it merged, but definitely don't have the resources to develop properly, etc? |
| 2024-10-06 19:05:26 +0200 | <Inst> | ehhh, could be a cultural issue for where they're coming from? |
| 2024-10-06 19:05:04 +0200 | tabemann | (~tabemann@2600:1700:7990:24e0:8858:4365:4e70:4256) |
| 2024-10-06 19:04:51 +0200 | tabemann | (~tabemann@2600:1700:7990:24e0:bc5d:8bdb:179f:73b1) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-10-06 19:04:34 +0200 | <davean> | You can for example, admit you don't have an answer yet |
| 2024-10-06 19:04:20 +0200 | <davean> | No, no, nothing requires refusing to answer a question and claiming you did |
| 2024-10-06 19:03:46 +0200 | <Inst> | once again, it's that Haskell needs more funding and resources |
| 2024-10-06 19:03:26 +0200 | <davean> | I was really disapointed in the Linear Haskell stuff, these questions were brought up before merge, they dogged constantly and claimed they answered them while refusing to. Quite sad. |
| 2024-10-06 19:03:21 +0200 | <Inst> | fundamentalist in fake python: simple haskell advocate who wants to get rid of explicit >>= and >> usage to make the codebase easier to approach |
| 2024-10-06 19:02:17 +0200 | <Inst> | that's a lot of haskell, no? Begging for someone to submit a pull request on Github |
| 2024-10-06 19:01:37 +0200 | <davean> | having tried to use it, it doesn't touch the IO domain at all really. Never solved any of the problems required |
| 2024-10-06 19:01:09 +0200 | <davean> | Inst: ... yah I think you're very wrong. |
| 2024-10-06 19:00:48 +0200 | <Inst> | for the last task you'd imagine they'd move to linear haskell to precisely control timings |
| 2024-10-06 19:00:34 +0200 | raehik | (~raehik@rdng-25-b2-v4wan-169990-cust1344.vm39.cable.virginm.net) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2024-10-06 19:00:19 +0200 | <Inst> | Anduril's recent job posting is either them being exciting about a mundane job, moving to hardkill jammers, or actually working on linear accelerators (railguns) |
| 2024-10-06 19:00:15 +0200 | <davean> | I've never heard of anyone having successes with it. |
| 2024-10-06 18:59:56 +0200 | <davean> | for me at least |
| 2024-10-06 18:59:52 +0200 | <davean> | Inst: horrid |
| 2024-10-06 18:59:48 +0200 | <davean> | people were talking about problem domains and ecosystem vs. language |
| 2024-10-06 18:59:39 +0200 | <Inst> | how is linear haskell working for people? |
| 2024-10-06 18:59:37 +0200 | <davean> | dolio: I didn't think it was in this case ... |
| 2024-10-06 18:59:22 +0200 | <dolio> | Typically stuff like this is presented as a problem. |
| 2024-10-06 18:59:12 +0200 | <davean> | Inst: says your thinking about that value specificly, not the computation at the very least. |
| 2024-10-06 18:58:56 +0200 | <Inst> | <- allows you to reuse the value |
| 2024-10-06 18:58:51 +0200 | <davean> | dolio: who said there was a problem? |
| 2024-10-06 18:58:48 +0200 | <dolio> | It's okay to use more than one language. |
| 2024-10-06 18:58:40 +0200 | <davean> | Inst: >>= and <- says something different about programmer intent. |
| 2024-10-06 18:58:33 +0200 | <dolio> | What is the problem with real time stuff being difficult in Haskell, though? Not every tool has to be perfect for every job. |
| 2024-10-06 18:58:11 +0200 | <davean> | Inst: I'm confused on what a fundimentalist in fake python style means |
| 2024-10-06 18:58:00 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-10-06 18:58:00 +0200 | vanishingideal | (~vanishing@user/vanishingideal) vanishingideal |
| 2024-10-06 18:56:59 +0200 | alp_ | (~alp@2001:861:e3d6:8f80:f5b0:cd1b:e895:cf8a) |
| 2024-10-06 18:56:27 +0200 | <Inst> | that said (,,) <$> foo <*> bar <*> baz >>= qux probably goes too far |
| 2024-10-06 18:53:49 +0200 | <lambdabot> | Monad m => (a -> m b) -> (b -> m c) -> a -> m c |
| 2024-10-06 18:53:48 +0200 | <Rembane> | :t (>=>) |
| 2024-10-06 18:53:42 +0200 | <Rembane> | I'm quite fond of (>=>) |
| 2024-10-06 18:53:34 +0200 | <Rembane> | That seems reasonable |
| 2024-10-06 18:53:20 +0200 | <Inst> | i'm more foo >>= bar when it's simpler, or foo; >>= bar; >>= baz when it better expresses the flow of your computation / program structure |
| 2024-10-06 18:53:19 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) merijn |
| 2024-10-06 18:52:49 +0200 | <Inst> | yeah |
| 2024-10-06 18:52:31 +0200 | <Rembane> | Inst: Are they all in on do-notation? |
| 2024-10-06 18:51:59 +0200 | <Inst> | there's folks on discourse who are fundamentalist in "fake python" style |
| 2024-10-06 18:51:15 +0200 | <davean> | I find I do both, depending on the details |
| 2024-10-06 18:50:20 +0200 | <Inst> | there's a trade-off in expressivity for familiarity, there's tons of cases where using >>= directly can be more expressive |
| 2024-10-06 18:49:54 +0200 | <Inst> | if you're not reusing the term, why bother with do; bar <- foo; baz bar when you can just foo >>= baz and be done with it? |
| 2024-10-06 18:49:02 +0200 | <Inst> | monochrom: the reason I worry about >>= leaking when it's explicitly used is because I love >>= |
| 2024-10-06 18:48:45 +0200 | <Inst> | thanks tomsmeding, and thanks for being unerringly helpful and a strong contributor to the community |
| 2024-10-06 18:48:42 +0200 | <davean> | There *are* ways to deal with it, but you have to deal with a lot of things you don't in others. |
| 2024-10-06 18:48:26 +0200 | <davean> | Franciman: Honestly though, this is a problem I think Haskell makes legitimately harder than other languages do though. |