Newest at the top
| 2026-02-24 22:47:07 +0100 | <newmind> | .o( but it does say a lot about haskell as a language/ecosystem that we're discussing it ) |
| 2026-02-24 22:46:06 +0100 | <monochrom> | I am unconvinced that (putStrLn . unwords . map show) is too slow. It's only 0.05 seconds on my laptop if you redirect to a file (which is the right thing to do if you're simulating an online autotester; if you let it go to a terminal, then the bottleneck is the terminal) |
| 2026-02-24 22:45:47 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> I want this https://hackage-content.haskell.org/package/Boolean-0.2.4/docs/Data-Boolean.html#t:OrdB and then define a function nubOrd' :: (OrdB a, BooleanOf a ~ Bool) => [a] -> [a] ; (maybe i should just not reimplement everything...) |
| 2026-02-24 22:45:40 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-02-24 22:43:02 +0100 | Arsen | (16abab341f@gentoo/developer/managarm.dev.Arsen) Arsen |
| 2026-02-24 22:37:42 +0100 | <EvanR> | maybe you need ways to lift library functions like nubOrdOn into your DSL |
| 2026-02-24 22:36:58 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | it kind of sounds like you'll need to be a bit more specific here |
| 2026-02-24 22:36:26 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> I want to use type families to allow the return type to be wrapped for DSL stuff |
| 2026-02-24 22:35:41 +0100 | <EvanR> | if you're trying to define an alternate Ord instance, that's what newtypes are for, then you use Ord |
| 2026-02-24 22:35:11 +0100 | <EvanR> | you want it to work on a variable class? |
| 2026-02-24 22:35:02 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2026-02-24 22:34:57 +0100 | <EvanR> | MyOrd ? |
| 2026-02-24 22:34:25 +0100 | <EvanR> | not N |
| 2026-02-24 22:34:21 +0100 | <EvanR> | oh it's only 2 lines |
| 2026-02-24 22:34:07 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> It obviously does not work on MyOrd a => [a], and specifying MyOrd a, Ord a => [a] makes MyOrd seem pointless |
| 2026-02-24 22:34:07 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | EvanR: yes, "YES" and 2 more ints |
| 2026-02-24 22:33:46 +0100 | <EvanR> | yeah but it has to print a lot more than that in that case, so someone trying to replicate your running time is going to undershoot by a lot |
| 2026-02-24 22:33:09 +0100 | jreicher | (~joelr@user/jreicher) jreicher |
| 2026-02-24 22:32:50 +0100 | <lantti> | It does need to print out 10^6 ints in the case n = 10^6. But thanks for the tips, i'll try some out and see if that makes a difference. |
| 2026-02-24 22:32:41 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> Filters duplicates by sorting |
| 2026-02-24 22:32:40 +0100 | <EvanR> | what is the trouble? |
| 2026-02-24 22:32:29 +0100 | jreicher | (~joelr@user/jreicher) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2026-02-24 22:32:26 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> i meant this: nubOrdOn :: Ord b => (a -> b) -> [a] -> [a] |
| 2026-02-24 22:31:52 +0100 | aka_dude | (~aka_dude@192.71.166.120) |
| 2026-02-24 22:31:32 +0100 | <lambdabot> | error: [GHC-88464] Variable not in scope: nubOn |
| 2026-02-24 22:31:31 +0100 | <lambdabot> | :) |
| 2026-02-24 22:31:20 +0100 | <EvanR> | @botsnack |
| 2026-02-24 22:31:02 +0100 | <EvanR> | :t nubOn |
| 2026-02-24 22:30:24 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> Is there a good way to define a more general Ord class that avoids troubles with functions using Ordered argumens like nubOn? |
| 2026-02-24 22:30:17 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-02-24 22:29:33 +0100 | <EvanR> | ok it doesn't seem to be trying to print out literally 10^6 ints but the program is more complex than that |
| 2026-02-24 22:28:09 +0100 | <lantti> | in each run |
| 2026-02-24 22:27:55 +0100 | <lantti> | so basically two runs of consecutive ints with one exception |
| 2026-02-24 22:27:17 +0100 | <lantti> | the whole task is that one: https://cses.fi/alon/task/1092/ |
| 2026-02-24 22:26:32 +0100 | <EvanR> | are they particularly uniform ints or like up to 3 digits or |
| 2026-02-24 22:26:07 +0100 | <lantti> | oops, 1000000 |
| 2026-02-24 22:25:54 +0100 | <EvanR> | 10^7 ints |
| 2026-02-24 22:25:51 +0100 | cbarrett | (sid192934@id-192934.helmsley.irccloud.com) cbarrett |
| 2026-02-24 22:25:39 +0100 | cbarrett | (sid192934@id-192934.helmsley.irccloud.com) (Server closed connection) |
| 2026-02-24 22:25:35 +0100 | <lantti> | I can't figure out the profiling under stack right now, but unix time command for the 10000000 Ints case gives 0.8s |
| 2026-02-24 22:25:04 +0100 | <EvanR> | requiring us to do artifically additional buffering wtf |
| 2026-02-24 22:24:47 +0100 | <EvanR> | hopefully evaluate doesn't first take an MVar before evaluating xD |
| 2026-02-24 22:23:24 +0100 | <lambdabot> | Foldable t => t b -> IO () |
| 2026-02-24 22:23:22 +0100 | <mauke> | :t mapM_ evaluate |
| 2026-02-24 22:20:42 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | that's the dual version :p |
| 2026-02-24 22:20:32 +0100 | <EvanR> | .oO( replace the printing with just evaluating the ints in sequence ) |
| 2026-02-24 22:20:01 +0100 | <newmind> | that was my second suggestion, replacing ints with [1..100000] or something |
| 2026-02-24 22:19:21 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | further tip: benchmark your code but setting `ints = replicate 100000 123456789` or something, just to double-check it's actually the printing that's slow, not the computation preceding it |
| 2026-02-24 22:19:01 +0100 | aka_dude | (~aka_dude@2a03:f80:30:f490::1) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-02-24 22:18:19 +0100 | morj_away | (~morj@user/morj) (Quit: Konversation terminated!) |