Newest at the top
| 2025-02-08 00:49:37 +0100 | <hololeap> | thanks |
| 2025-02-08 00:49:24 +0100 | otbergsten | (~otbergste@user/otbergsten) () |
| 2025-02-08 00:49:01 +0100 | <lambdabot> | https://hackage.haskell.org/package/validation |
| 2025-02-08 00:49:01 +0100 | <Leary> | @hackage validation |
| 2025-02-08 00:48:13 +0100 | <hololeap> | but what is the name of the package that contains an Either like data type that accumulates errors? |
| 2025-02-08 00:47:44 +0100 | <hololeap> | I asked this a year back because for some reason this package is hard for me to remember and it's surprisingly difficult to search for |
| 2025-02-08 00:46:51 +0100 | __monty__ | (~toonn@user/toonn) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2025-02-08 00:32:35 +0100 | <geekosaur> | but even so, the notion of reducing a problem to a simpler version seemed pretty obvious to me |
| 2025-02-08 00:32:13 +0100 | <geekosaur> | yeh, I can't say whether I'd encountered that by that point or not |
| 2025-02-08 00:26:48 +0100 | MyNetAz | (~MyNetAz@user/MyNetAz) MyNetAz |
| 2025-02-08 00:25:33 +0100 | <Leary> | Yeah, for me recursion was an obvious, intuitive tool for simplifying problems; I'd instead stuggle to solve them /without/ it. Though I may have understood it via the principle of induction. |
| 2025-02-08 00:19:48 +0100 | MyNetAz | (~MyNetAz@user/MyNetAz) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-02-08 00:17:50 +0100 | <geekosaur> | I'm… not sure I ever didn't understand recursion. I recall being annoyed that there was no way to do it in MS-BASIC |
| 2025-02-08 00:17:21 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Bowuigi> Knowing about the stack is good for imperative languages but bad for functional languages IMHO |
| 2025-02-08 00:15:09 +0100 | michalz | (~michalz@185.246.207.197) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-02-08 00:14:28 +0100 | <c_wraith> | I'm still unsure if understanding recursion was made easier by simultaneously learning how compilers implement it or not. |
| 2025-02-08 00:12:21 +0100 | foul_owl | (~kerry@193.42.0.126) foul_owl |
| 2025-02-08 00:11:20 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-02-08 00:08:33 +0100 | <EvanR> | but also not only do I understand recursion it was actually on the syllabus once |
| 2025-02-08 00:08:12 +0100 | <EvanR> | I resemble that remark |
| 2025-02-08 00:08:08 +0100 | <EvanR> | >3rd rate college grad |
| 2025-02-08 00:07:10 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee |
| 2025-02-08 00:02:56 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2025-02-07 23:58:29 +0100 | foul_owl | (~kerry@193.42.0.126) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2025-02-07 23:58:12 +0100 | remedan | (~remedan@ip-62-245-108-153.bb.vodafone.cz) remedan |
| 2025-02-07 23:57:09 +0100 | remedan | (~remedan@ip-62-245-108-153.bb.vodafone.cz) (Quit: Bye!) |
| 2025-02-07 23:52:16 +0100 | fp1 | (~Thunderbi@hof1.kyla.fi) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-02-07 23:39:11 +0100 | fp1 | (~Thunderbi@hof1.kyla.fi) fp |
| 2025-02-07 23:38:16 +0100 | eL_Bart0 | (eL_Bart0@dietunichtguten.org) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2025-02-07 23:31:28 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) peterbecich |
| 2025-02-07 23:28:37 +0100 | remedan | (~remedan@ip-62-245-108-153.bb.vodafone.cz) remedan |
| 2025-02-07 23:26:21 +0100 | prasad | (~Thunderbi@2601:243:c001:3f07::53) |
| 2025-02-07 23:25:12 +0100 | erdem | (~erdem@user/erdem) erdem |
| 2025-02-07 23:24:23 +0100 | wootehfoot | (~wootehfoo@user/wootehfoot) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-02-07 23:22:05 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-02-07 23:21:30 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-02-07 23:18:23 +0100 | <monochrom> | It's late Friday so let me go on rant for just once more. Although LLM is far from being the be-all-end-all of AI, I would actually welcome it when real AI, really good almost-ultimate AI, replaced us, because only then people will not pamper about "but AI doesn't understand recursion or BlockArguments". |
| 2025-02-07 23:17:25 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee |
| 2025-02-07 23:16:52 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-02-07 23:13:52 +0100 | remedan | (~remedan@ip-62-245-108-153.bb.vodafone.cz) (Quit: Bye!) |
| 2025-02-07 23:13:24 +0100 | <geekosaur> | see also: Go |
| 2025-02-07 23:12:07 +0100 | <monochrom> | (And of course, because 3rd-rate grads are cheaper.) |
| 2025-02-07 23:11:45 +0100 | <monochrom> | I know that industry (though not Haskell in the following) can be like that. My friend says his bank bans recursion because "we want to hire 3rd-rate college grads and they can't do recursion". |
| 2025-02-07 23:10:42 +0100 | <monochrom> | Like if kindergarten kids don't understand it then it is not "readable". |
| 2025-02-07 23:10:21 +0100 | <monochrom> | I have a conjecture that industrial users have a bigger voice, and also they have a very narrow sense of "readable" code. |
| 2025-02-07 23:06:04 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-02-07 23:01:30 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-02-07 22:50:59 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-02-07 22:42:47 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-02-07 22:41:38 +0100 | takuan | (~takuan@d8D86B601.access.telenet.be) (Remote host closed the connection) |