Newest at the top
| 2025-03-09 20:58:30 +0100 | <monochrom> | But this is actually telling me why other people like OOP more. "class Case1 extends T { foo() = ... }" "class Case2 extends T { foo() = ... }" is much more compatible to the explanation order I want. |
| 2025-03-09 20:57:54 +0100 | jmcantrell | (~weechat@user/jmcantrell) jmcantrell |
| 2025-03-09 20:57:06 +0100 | MyNetAz | (~MyNetAz@user/MyNetAz) MyNetAz |
| 2025-03-09 20:56:46 +0100 | <monochrom> | A literate programming tool/environment needs that, even if we can argue how often it is used. |
| 2025-03-09 20:56:35 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-03-09 20:55:16 +0100 | <int-e> | I don't think a programming language needs to support the idea that code be written in the order that it's developed, one feature at a time. |
| 2025-03-09 20:54:21 +0100 | <EvanR> | Basic Category Theory book also doesn't have monads |
| 2025-03-09 20:54:08 +0100 | <EvanR> | probably for the best |
| 2025-03-09 20:54:01 +0100 | <monochrom> | I don't even have time to cover the Monad type class. |
| 2025-03-09 20:53:07 +0100 | infinity0 | (~infinity0@pwned.gg) infinity0 |
| 2025-03-09 20:52:16 +0100 | <monochrom> | Yeah right I'm going to use trees that grow in a course where students see Haskell for the first time! |
| 2025-03-09 20:51:39 +0100 | <int-e> | there's that trees that grow thing :P |
| 2025-03-09 20:51:25 +0100 | infinity0 | (~infinity0@pwned.gg) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-03-09 20:51:18 +0100 | <EvanR> | to boldly go where no definition has been split before |
| 2025-03-09 20:50:54 +0100 | <EvanR> | you split the definition |
| 2025-03-09 20:50:05 +0100 | MyNetAz | (~MyNetAz@user/MyNetAz) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-03-09 20:49:46 +0100 | <monochrom> | And does Haskell allow you to write like "data T = Case1; foo Case1 = ...; data T = ... | Case2; foo Case2 = ..."? |
| 2025-03-09 20:49:45 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-03-09 20:49:03 +0100 | <monochrom> | My lecture notes need that IMO. |
| 2025-03-09 20:48:55 +0100 | abrar | (~abrar@static-96-245-187-163.phlapa.fios.verizon.net) |
| 2025-03-09 20:48:48 +0100 | <monochrom> | Does Haskell even allow you to write "foo [] = 0; example1 = foo []; foo (x:xs) = x + foo xs"? |
| 2025-03-09 20:48:27 +0100 | abrar | (~abrar@static-96-245-187-163.phlapa.fios.verizon.net) (Quit: WeeChat 4.2.2) |
| 2025-03-09 20:48:05 +0100 | <EvanR> | you can't rearrange the order in the source file? |
| 2025-03-09 20:47:27 +0100 | <monochrom> | Edit I can say the same about almost every case of the Expr and Value types. |
| 2025-03-09 20:46:23 +0100 | <monochrom> | I can say the same about almost every case. |
| 2025-03-09 20:45:32 +0100 | <monochrom> | EvanR: https://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~trebla/CSCC24-latest/09-semantics-1.html is one of my lecture notes where IMO my order there is better than any order accepted by Haskell. For example, after explain function application and the "interp (App f e) = ..." case, it makes no sense to procrastinate walking through static vs dynamic scoping with the example "exampleScoping = ..." until after I also finish recursion "interp (Rec ...) = ..." |
| 2025-03-09 20:45:29 +0100 | Square | (~Square@user/square) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-03-09 20:45:13 +0100 | alp | (~alp@2001:861:8ca0:4940:445a:f71:bdb6:b173) |
| 2025-03-09 20:44:20 +0100 | econo_ | (uid147250@id-147250.tinside.irccloud.com) |
| 2025-03-09 20:41:13 +0100 | Sgeo | (~Sgeo@user/sgeo) Sgeo |
| 2025-03-09 20:40:39 +0100 | Square | (~Square@user/square) Square |
| 2025-03-09 20:39:39 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-03-09 20:38:30 +0100 | ljdarj1 | ljdarj |
| 2025-03-09 20:38:30 +0100 | ljdarj | (~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2025-03-09 20:37:36 +0100 | ezzieyguywuf | (~Unknown@user/ezzieyguywuf) (Quit: Lost terminal) |
| 2025-03-09 20:36:09 +0100 | ljdarj1 | (~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) ljdarj |
| 2025-03-09 20:35:35 +0100 | srazkvt | (~sarah@user/srazkvt) (Quit: Konversation terminated!) |
| 2025-03-09 20:34:55 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-03-09 20:34:41 +0100 | hattckory | (~hattckory@bras-base-toroon4524w-grc-48-184-145-138-167.dsl.bell.ca) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2025-03-09 20:30:15 +0100 | hattckory | (~hattckory@bras-base-toroon4524w-grc-48-184-145-138-167.dsl.bell.ca) |
| 2025-03-09 20:27:43 +0100 | Smiles | (uid551636@id-551636.lymington.irccloud.com) (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity) |
| 2025-03-09 20:24:11 +0100 | <int-e> | real-time profiling data and just in time compilation make this more realistic |
| 2025-03-09 20:23:49 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-03-09 20:23:49 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-03-09 20:23:24 +0100 | <EvanR> | sun with java claimed to have done it |
| 2025-03-09 20:23:13 +0100 | int-e | shrugs |
| 2025-03-09 20:23:11 +0100 | <EvanR> | "just parallel my code" has been a promise for 30 years now |
| 2025-03-09 20:23:06 +0100 | <int-e> | that's not generic |
| 2025-03-09 20:22:05 +0100 | <Inst> | i mean, is this an actual problem? I was asking that, i.e, when I was trying parallelism for a brute force attempt at calculating blackjack's split EV, I was told, just benchmark and see what happens |
| 2025-03-09 20:21:10 +0100 | <int-e> | And keeping subtasks coarse enough, which makes it hard to do this generically. Oh well. |