Newest at the top
| 2024-11-06 17:30:58 +0100 | tomboy64 | (~tomboy64@user/tomboy64) tomboy64 |
| 2024-11-06 17:30:35 +0100 | <Inst> | given certain events |
| 2024-11-06 17:30:27 +0100 | <Inst> | probably, and now is not a good time |
| 2024-11-06 17:30:19 +0100 | <EvanR> | or confused |
| 2024-11-06 17:30:14 +0100 | <EvanR> | you're misleading |
| 2024-11-06 17:29:08 +0100 | <Inst> | i mean that purely functional programming, as an advertising phrase, at least, is misleading |
| 2024-11-06 17:28:42 +0100 | <Inst> | erm, GHCup upkeep |
| 2024-11-06 17:28:20 +0100 | <Inst> | you didn't agree to the bet, so i can't try to cajole you into passing maerwald some money for GHC upkeep |
| 2024-11-06 17:28:06 +0100 | <Inst> | onlineapp.d(20): Error: `pure` function `onlineapp.bigPow` cannot call impure function `std.stdio.writefln!(char, BigInt).writefln` |
| 2024-11-06 17:27:23 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) merijn |
| 2024-11-06 17:27:15 +0100 | <EvanR> | which is true |
| 2024-11-06 17:27:13 +0100 | <EvanR> | just that it's unpopular |
| 2024-11-06 17:27:01 +0100 | <EvanR> | I don't know what that refers to, but anyway, you're not supporting "pure functional programming is meaningless" |
| 2024-11-06 17:26:28 +0100 | <Inst> | if i win, will you donate to maerwald? |
| 2024-11-06 17:26:26 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2024-11-06 17:26:13 +0100 | <EvanR> | I wager $10 that it's for documentation purposes and doesn't actually stop side effects |
| 2024-11-06 17:25:33 +0100 | <Inst> | https://tour.dlang.org/tour/en/gems/functional-programming#:~:text=Pure%20functions,functions%20wh… |
| 2024-11-06 17:25:31 +0100 | <Inst> | and yeah, D has a pure declaration for a function |
| 2024-11-06 17:24:42 +0100 | <Inst> | but iirc... oh wait, lisp macros, but generally languages don't have special support for pure functions |
| 2024-11-06 17:23:52 +0100 | <EvanR> | "concept of a pure function" was well known in lisp since forever |
| 2024-11-06 17:23:15 +0100 | <EvanR> | C++ of the 90s |
| 2024-11-06 17:23:09 +0100 | <EvanR> | refusing to look outside its C++ origins |
| 2024-11-06 17:22:54 +0100 | <EvanR> | D is a miserable pile of hacks and missed opportunities |
| 2024-11-06 17:22:48 +0100 | Guest7 | (~Guest7@syn-172-249-181-078.res.spectrum.com) |
| 2024-11-06 17:22:41 +0100 | <EvanR> | it does not |
| 2024-11-06 17:22:32 +0100 | <Inst> | I heard that D has a concept of pure function, but it's opt in instead of opt-out, maybe I'm wrong here? |
| 2024-11-06 17:22:30 +0100 | <EvanR> | all functions in haskell are pure so there's that |
| 2024-11-06 17:22:14 +0100 | <Inst> | iirc there are no more "mainstream" languages than Haskell that employ purity |
| 2024-11-06 17:22:03 +0100 | <EvanR> | because they never heard of the term "pure function" before |
| 2024-11-06 17:21:54 +0100 | <EvanR> | like haskell is purely functional because it's 100% functional, while closure is 40% functional, or something, and so not pure lol |
| 2024-11-06 17:21:50 +0100 | <Inst> | it's a bit gimmicky that purely here is a term of art, not the colloquial term |
| 2024-11-06 17:21:35 +0100 | <Inst> | it refers to functional programming, referential transparency, and the equal result of call-by-name, call-by-value, and call-by-need function calls |
| 2024-11-06 17:21:28 +0100 | <EvanR> | though not everyone knows what this is supposed to mean, some people hear it and think they're talking about proportion of paradigms the language is based on |
| 2024-11-06 17:20:59 +0100 | <EvanR> | "purely function programming" is not meaningless |
| 2024-11-06 17:20:40 +0100 | <EvanR> | it's also not a supertype since we don't have subtypes |
| 2024-11-06 17:20:19 +0100 | Digitteknohippie | Digit |
| 2024-11-06 17:20:04 +0100 | TonyStone | (~TonyStone@user/TonyStone) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-11-06 17:20:01 +0100 | <EvanR> | "a set of types" is not one of them |
| 2024-11-06 17:19:51 +0100 | <EvanR> | we discussed positively 2 ways you can explain what Any means |
| 2024-11-06 17:19:31 +0100 | Guest7 | (~Guest7@syn-172-249-181-078.res.spectrum.com) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2024-11-06 17:19:27 +0100 | <EvanR> | that that makes no sense |
| 2024-11-06 17:19:22 +0100 | <Inst> | What is your objection? |
| 2024-11-06 17:19:08 +0100 | <EvanR> | or that it is a class and it's instances are types |
| 2024-11-06 17:18:51 +0100 | <EvanR> | I object to your theory that "Any -> Any is a member of Any" as if Any (a type) is a set, and it's members are types |
| 2024-11-06 17:18:38 +0100 | <kuribas> | True functions are total. |
| 2024-11-06 17:18:36 +0100 | <Inst> | it's weird because I'm the guy lambasting "pure, functional programming" as meaningless, but now I'm going back to "pure, functional programming" is good |
| 2024-11-06 17:18:09 +0100 | <Inst> | i was just looking for whether or not the argument that only Haskell has true functions has ever been made |
| 2024-11-06 17:18:06 +0100 | <EvanR> | it's not like Dynamic because Dynamic can actually be used safely, in ways that aren't just STLC with 1 base type |
| 2024-11-06 17:17:41 +0100 | <Inst> | since (Any -> Any) is a member of Any |
| 2024-11-06 17:17:36 +0100 | <kuribas> | Inst: yeah, it's like Dynamic -> Dynamic. |