2024/10/06

Newest at the top

2024-10-06 19:18:57 +0200 <davean> Rembane: Some of the best Haskellers I know tries that, and as a team failed.
2024-10-06 19:18:48 +0200 <Rembane> davean: ^^
2024-10-06 19:18:23 +0200 <dolio> So, like, maybe you could use linear types to design some methodology of using unsafe operations, and very carefully implement something on top of the unsafe operations that provided some kind of typical performance increase. But the linearity stuff is not inherently doing the things that perform better in known ways.
2024-10-06 19:18:23 +0200 <davean> HAVE FUN!
2024-10-06 19:18:21 +0200 <davean> Rembane: Try writing like just a merge step of a merge sort with liner types, consider the edge cases.
2024-10-06 19:13:48 +0200ash3en(~Thunderbi@2a03:7846:b6eb:101:93ac:a90a:da67:f207) ash3en
2024-10-06 19:13:21 +0200merijn(~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2024-10-06 19:13:07 +0200 <dolio> I haven't looked closely, but the problem seems to be that it wasn't designed to address the usual, known uses of linear types.
2024-10-06 19:12:49 +0200 <Rembane> davean: Got it!
2024-10-06 19:11:39 +0200 <davean> Rembane: broken? No. The source of the issues using it? Yes
2024-10-06 19:11:09 +0200 <Rembane> davean: Do you imply that the theory is broken? Or have I misunderstood you?
2024-10-06 19:10:45 +0200 <Rembane> Are we back in the libraries + language again?
2024-10-06 19:10:19 +0200 <davean> You know ... except libraries can't patch theory
2024-10-06 19:10:17 +0200athan(~athan@syn-098-153-145-140.biz.spectrum.com) athan
2024-10-06 19:09:53 +0200 <Inst> they're essentially: "we built stuff into GHc, everything else is the problem of the library makers"
2024-10-06 19:09:40 +0200 <Inst> from what I hear of the linear Haskell people
2024-10-06 19:08:51 +0200merijn(~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) merijn
2024-10-06 19:08:22 +0200 <Rembane> Did it result in any good papers?
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 +0200tabemann(~tabemann@2600:1700:7990:24e0:8858:4365:4e70:4256)
2024-10-06 19:04:51 +0200tabemann(~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 +0200raehik(~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 +0200merijn(~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2024-10-06 18:58:00 +0200vanishingideal(~vanishing@user/vanishingideal) vanishingideal