Newest at the top
| 2025-03-21 11:08:36 +0100 | gmg | (~user@user/gehmehgeh) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-03-21 11:07:05 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | I like this blast-to-the-past Haskell style |
| 2025-03-21 11:06:38 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2025-03-21 11:06:15 +0100 | <Athas> | Forward over Forward. |
| 2025-03-21 11:06:10 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | 'ad' with Forward over Forward, or Forward over ForwardDouble? |
| 2025-03-21 11:05:45 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | lol |
| 2025-03-21 11:05:42 +0100 | <Athas> | Sure, but it is already faster than 'ad'. |
| 2025-03-21 11:05:41 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | but let me read |
| 2025-03-21 11:05:31 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | that will likely be faster if you `data Bundle = Bundle {-# UNPACK #-} !Double {-# UNPACK #-} !Double` |
| 2025-03-21 11:05:24 +0100 | <Athas> | But it is easy to fix. |
| 2025-03-21 11:05:18 +0100 | <Athas> | There are also n+k patterns. |
| 2025-03-21 11:05:13 +0100 | <Athas> | Yes, it is aaaalmost working Haskell. |
| 2025-03-21 11:04:42 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | ooh, DatatypeContexts |
| 2025-03-21 11:04:26 +0100 | <Athas> | And the dual numbers: https://engineering.purdue.edu/~qobi/stalingrad-examples2009/common-ghc.html |
| 2025-03-21 11:04:14 +0100 | <Athas> | This is the ad hoc version: https://engineering.purdue.edu/~qobi/stalingrad-examples2009/particle-FF-ghc.html |
| 2025-03-21 11:04:14 +0100 | <Athas> | This is my code: https://github.com/gradbench/gradbench/blob/4fdb8cc00daaae42b99431fde3da7be1b1bbbc13/tools/haskell… |
| 2025-03-21 11:02:35 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | does that help? |
| 2025-03-21 11:02:28 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | the former you get with reverse AD, which is more complicated |
| 2025-03-21 11:02:25 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee |
| 2025-03-21 11:02:09 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | the typical dual-numbers formulation gives you the _latter_, whereas you usually (but not always) want the former |
| 2025-03-21 11:01:49 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | the problem is that you can do so efficiently for a function of type R^n -> R, or for a function of type R -> R^n |
| 2025-03-21 11:01:31 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | __monty__: it is |
| 2025-03-21 11:01:21 +0100 | <__monty__> | (I'd appreciate another recap of what AD is. It's not just a way to numerically compute derivatives of numerical functions, is it? Feel free to leave the recap for when the discussion is more or less over.) |
| 2025-03-21 11:00:34 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | can you share your code with the manual dual numbers? I'm curious to see what beats `ad` |
| 2025-03-21 11:00:14 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | few people are |
| 2025-03-21 11:00:04 +0100 | <Athas> | I've realised I'm not good at fast Haskell. |
| 2025-03-21 10:59:46 +0100 | <Athas> | Well, it's not so easy - I need actual nested AD. |
| 2025-03-21 10:59:28 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | did you try Numeric.AD.Mode.Tower(.Double)? It purports to be higher-order forward derivatives |
| 2025-03-21 10:59:03 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | forward in `ad` is just a dual number, so that's rather surprising |
| 2025-03-21 10:58:43 +0100 | <Athas> | Forward-over-forward. And it's slower than just hacking up your own dual numbers. |
| 2025-03-21 10:58:29 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | Athas: which mode did you use? |
| 2025-03-21 10:58:19 +0100 | <Athas> | tomsmeding: well, I got it working (albeit with undesirable boilerplate), but now it's just remarkably slow. |
| 2025-03-21 10:58:12 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | (Assuming you mean 2nd, etc. derivatives, not "AD of code containing (higher-order) functions") |
| 2025-03-21 10:57:47 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | Athas: I have few insights regarding higher-order derivatives in general, let alone with `ad`. :P |
| 2025-03-21 10:41:14 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) califx |
| 2025-03-21 10:39:48 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-03-21 10:36:09 +0100 | lxsameer | (~lxsameer@Serene/lxsameer) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-03-21 10:30:07 +0100 | kuribas | (~user@ip-188-118-57-242.reverse.destiny.be) kuribas |
| 2025-03-21 10:26:41 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) califx |
| 2025-03-21 10:26:00 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-03-21 10:21:30 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-03-21 10:16:59 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee |
| 2025-03-21 10:15:22 +0100 | dhil | (~dhil@2a0c:b381:52e:3600:dd6a:fa62:e132:ec11) dhil |
| 2025-03-21 10:12:39 +0100 | <[exa]> | `someglue` should be solvable by following a typehole |
| 2025-03-21 10:12:30 +0100 | forell | (~forell@user/forell) forell |
| 2025-03-21 10:11:54 +0100 | <[exa]> | basically having the global value as this should do it: memoized = toLazyByteString ...someglue... runHtmlT $ mypage |
| 2025-03-21 10:09:55 +0100 | <[exa]> | but you can cache the prebuild piece (let it evaluate to something with runHtml or so?) and then just shove it into the other html builders? |
| 2025-03-21 10:08:34 +0100 | <[exa]> | Liamzee: yap that's a builder, not cacheable |
| 2025-03-21 10:06:25 +0100 | krei-se | (~krei-se@p3ee0faf4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2025-03-21 10:06:01 +0100 | krei-se- | (~krei-se@p5dea1e73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) krei-se |