Newest at the top
| 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. |
| 2025-03-09 20:20:16 +0100 | <EvanR> | if it doesn't, or if it hurts performance, then it's not good |
| 2025-03-09 20:20:15 +0100 | <int-e> | (personally I'd worry about splitting tasks evenly enough) |
| 2025-03-09 20:20:09 +0100 | <EvanR> | one issue with parallel code is delivering on an increase in performance |
| 2025-03-09 20:19:39 +0100 | <EvanR> | which I seriously doubt |
| 2025-03-09 20:19:33 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee |
| 2025-03-09 20:19:30 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-03-09 20:19:27 +0100 | <EvanR> | thinking it would be the fastest possible |
| 2025-03-09 20:19:25 +0100 | <int-e> | EvanR: 20; the lone 2^20 was correcting what 1048576 is |
| 2025-03-09 20:19:16 +0100 | <EvanR> | 19 would imply you're doing x*y in its own parallel computation |
| 2025-03-09 20:18:48 +0100 | <EvanR> | so how many levels of splitting |
| 2025-03-09 20:17:07 +0100 | <Inst> | i mean if there's a million element list, it's 2^20, would be less |
| 2025-03-09 20:16:25 +0100 | <EvanR> | 2^2^20 elements |
| 2025-03-09 20:16:17 +0100 | <EvanR> | 2^20 levels of splitting would be a very large list |
| 2025-03-09 20:15:37 +0100 | <EvanR> | it might not work if you try to mconcat over that many chunks at a time |
| 2025-03-09 20:15:22 +0100 | <[exa]> | that's probably gonna differ a lot from machine to machine no? |
| 2025-03-09 20:15:13 +0100 | <EvanR> | since you only have like double digit cores |
| 2025-03-09 20:14:46 +0100 | <Inst> | 2^20 |
| 2025-03-09 20:14:42 +0100 | <Inst> | ehhh, probably closer to 20 or so, if 1048576 is 2 |
| 2025-03-09 20:14:14 +0100 | <Inst> | right now, i'm thinking hundreds |
| 2025-03-09 20:13:29 +0100 | fmira | (~user@user/fmira) fmira |
| 2025-03-09 20:13:16 +0100 | <EvanR> | how many levels of splitting |