Newest at the top
| 2024-11-14 14:15:25 +0100 | <bailsman> | So the use cases are considerably more niche than I thought. Like if you need to exchange two elements or something, the pure version would have to copy the entire thing and the mutable version only two elements. But for most cases, it's a bait? |
| 2024-11-14 14:14:28 +0100 | <geekosaur> | they will definitely have costs you don't incur with immutable vectors |
| 2024-11-14 14:13:44 +0100 | <bailsman> | Huh, are mutable vectors a scam? `VM.iforM_ mv $ \i x -> VM.write mv i (updateValue x)` is considerably slower for simple objects, and barely faster than `map updateValue` even for large complex objects. |
| 2024-11-14 14:12:30 +0100 | <kuribas`> | If you would evaluate the second element of the list, the debugger should not halt the whole expression. |
| 2024-11-14 14:12:05 +0100 | <lambdabot> | 1 |
| 2024-11-14 14:12:04 +0100 | <kuribas`> | > head [1, undefined] |
| 2024-11-14 14:05:11 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <hellwolf> the lie is limited to the extent that, if your program is not total, would the debugger hurt your bottom where you intend to leave it so. |
| 2024-11-14 14:02:26 +0100 | <__monty__> | There's the rub : ) |
| 2024-11-14 13:59:51 +0100 | alphazone | (~alphazone@2.219.56.221) |
| 2024-11-14 13:59:08 +0100 | <kuribas`> | Assuming it doesn't use unsafePerformIO. |
| 2024-11-14 13:58:57 +0100 | <kuribas`> | __monty__: how can it be a lie with "pure" code? |
| 2024-11-14 13:48:41 +0100 | <__monty__> | That would also cause confusion though. Since sometimes referential transparency is a lie. And it's easy to convince yourself that the expressions must surely be evaluating in the order you think they are. |
| 2024-11-14 13:47:50 +0100 | mari73904 | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2024-11-14 13:47:01 +0100 | mari-estel | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) (Client Quit) |
| 2024-11-14 13:47:00 +0100 | <kuribas`> | As long as the semantics are preserved. |
| 2024-11-14 13:46:40 +0100 | <kuribas`> | I the end, lazyness doesn't specify an order for execution. |
| 2024-11-14 13:46:10 +0100 | <kuribas`> | A more useful pure debugger would allow you to choose which expression to evaluate. |
| 2024-11-14 13:45:55 +0100 | <kuribas`> | The problem is that the GHC debugger follow the imperative model for debugging (stepping through, etc..) |
| 2024-11-14 13:44:51 +0100 | mari-estel | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) mari-estel |
| 2024-11-14 13:44:19 +0100 | mari-estel | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2024-11-14 13:43:13 +0100 | mari73904 | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) mari-estel |
| 2024-11-14 13:41:53 +0100 | <hellwolf> | Debug.Trace (trace) |
| 2024-11-14 13:41:35 +0100 | <hellwolf> | Does Trace.trace help? |
| 2024-11-14 13:38:40 +0100 | <mari-estel> | prints or traces are a good way to collect test samples while troubleshooting |
| 2024-11-14 13:38:40 +0100 | <mari-estel> | huh properties help equally with pure and monadic |
| 2024-11-14 13:37:49 +0100 | mari59415 | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2024-11-14 13:36:10 +0100 | <hellwolf> | fwiw, @dminuoso, I had a small example here https://discourse.haskell.org/t/variable-arity-currying-helper/10659 that decorates "let foo' = curry' (MkFn foo)" but that assumes all arguments is "showable". to make it runTrace, you'd need to have a default instance for all types, and then overlapping instance for Show, Num, Functor, etc. |
| 2024-11-14 13:35:34 +0100 | mari-estel | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) mari-estel |
| 2024-11-14 13:34:38 +0100 | <hellwolf> | exactly, mari59415, it is a problem most applicable to impure code. For pure code, you write properties (which means thinking a lot about what you are writing.) |
| 2024-11-14 13:33:53 +0100 | <hellwolf> | But I find the habit of spending more time in thinking then examining into what happened is a better use of time. Of course, on the contrary, Linus, notoriously, promoted the idea of printf debugging. So I guess the tool influence on how you do troubleshooting. |
| 2024-11-14 13:32:42 +0100 | <mari59415> | no mentions about pure code being amounts easier to test |
| 2024-11-14 13:32:36 +0100 | ChanServ | +v haskellbridge |
| 2024-11-14 13:32:36 +0100 | haskellbridge | (~hackager@syn-024-093-192-219.res.spectrum.com) hackager |
| 2024-11-14 13:32:28 +0100 | <lortabac> | I don't think we should see lack of observability as an intrinsic property of pure computations |
| 2024-11-14 13:31:51 +0100 | <lortabac> | "Pure code is often cumbersome to debug" *with GHC* |
| 2024-11-14 13:31:46 +0100 | haskellbridge | (~hackager@syn-024-093-192-219.res.spectrum.com) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-11-14 13:28:48 +0100 | <hellwolf> | sorry, typed too slow. I meant to propose a hypothetical |
| 2024-11-14 13:28:32 +0100 | misterfish | (~misterfis@31-161-39-137.biz.kpn.net) misterfish |
| 2024-11-14 13:28:25 +0100 | <hellwolf> | that'd be my ideal way of trace into your pure fn in a principled way. I am entirely sure how feasible/difficult it could be; I did somethings that involve some aspects of such a thing. |
| 2024-11-14 13:28:06 +0100 | <dminuoso> | What is `runTrace` supposed to be here? |
| 2024-11-14 13:27:19 +0100 | <hellwolf> | runTrace your_pure_fn your_trace_filters ...currying your_pure_fn_args... |
| 2024-11-14 13:26:39 +0100 | tromp | (~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2024-11-14 13:26:03 +0100 | mari-estel | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-11-14 13:25:23 +0100 | arahael_ | (~arahael@user/arahael) arahael |
| 2024-11-14 13:24:25 +0100 | arahael_ | (~arahael@user/arahael) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2024-11-14 13:23:59 +0100 | mari59415 | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) mari-estel |
| 2024-11-14 13:22:42 +0100 | <dminuoso> | Consider something like GHC, where large portions work in IO |
| 2024-11-14 13:22:21 +0100 | <dminuoso> | Pure code is often cumbersome to debug |
| 2024-11-14 13:22:02 +0100 | <dminuoso> | hellwolf: Anyway, IO can still be a useful tool, especially if you want any kind of introspectability of whats going on (say logging or debugging) |
| 2024-11-14 13:20:32 +0100 | <dminuoso> | No, those examples I named are both wrong. Mmm. |