2025/04/29

Newest at the top

2025-04-29 04:44:04 +0200prdak(~Thunderbi@user/prdak) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-04-29 04:41:56 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-04-29 04:39:50 +0200prdak(~Thunderbi@user/prdak) prdak
2025-04-29 04:38:09 +0200Feuermagier(~Feuermagi@user/feuermagier) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2025-04-29 04:34:10 +0200Sgeo(~Sgeo@user/sgeo) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-04-29 04:31:35 +0200Sgeo_(~Sgeo@user/sgeo) Sgeo
2025-04-29 04:30:53 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2025-04-29 04:25:20 +0200Typedfern(~Typedfern@135.red-83-37-43.dynamicip.rima-tde.net)
2025-04-29 04:24:22 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-04-29 04:21:59 +0200td_(~td@i53870912.versanet.de)
2025-04-29 04:20:14 +0200td_(~td@i53870908.versanet.de) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-04-29 04:17:19 +0200tavare(~tavare@user/tavare) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-04-29 04:16:40 +0200tavare(~tavare@user/tavare) tavare
2025-04-29 04:16:40 +0200tavare(~tavare@150.129.88.189) (Changing host)
2025-04-29 04:16:39 +0200tavare(~tavare@150.129.88.189) tavare
2025-04-29 04:13:38 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-04-29 04:08:33 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-04-29 04:00:13 +0200Raito_Bezarius(~Raito@wireguard/tunneler/raito-bezarius) Raito_Bezarius
2025-04-29 03:58:05 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2025-04-29 03:56:58 +0200Raito_Bezarius(~Raito@wireguard/tunneler/raito-bezarius) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2025-04-29 03:56:14 +0200xff0x(~xff0x@2409:251:9040:2c00:42ff:c32a:d7a0:a5f4) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2025-04-29 03:52:47 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-04-29 03:41:35 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2025-04-29 03:36:59 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-04-29 03:32:12 +0200gorignak(~gorignak@user/gorignak) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-04-29 03:30:43 +0200sayurc(~sayurc@169.150.203.34) sayurc
2025-04-29 03:30:22 +0200 <EvanR> which is where haskell's guarantee comes in
2025-04-29 03:27:01 +0200weary-traveler(~user@user/user363627) user363627
2025-04-29 03:26:58 +0200 <EvanR> predicting performance aside, the main issue is going into an infinite loop because of insufficient laziness
2025-04-29 03:25:58 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-04-29 03:25:32 +0200 <EvanR> they are, though I was wondering to what extent that was necessary
2025-04-29 03:24:56 +0200 <monochrom> But I haven't really needed to resort to that. Most languages are sufficiently specified or at least suffciently de-facto'ed.
2025-04-29 03:23:46 +0200gorignak(~gorignak@user/gorignak) gorignak
2025-04-29 03:22:52 +0200peterbecich(~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2025-04-29 03:21:27 +0200 <EvanR> that sucks!
2025-04-29 03:21:11 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-04-29 03:19:00 +0200 <monochrom> Yeah, that.
2025-04-29 03:18:47 +0200 <monochrom> If unspecified, then I cannot assume for example const () bottom = (), so pessimistically I will have to write like, well, I don't want to get js involved, but I can work with SML or Racket.
2025-04-29 03:18:34 +0200 <EvanR> in some sense lazy evaluation subsumes eager evaluation, so does it mean with no other information you would default to eager?
2025-04-29 03:15:30 +0200 <EvanR> if neither are specified?
2025-04-29 03:13:18 +0200 <monochrom> If evaluation isn't specified, then I would need strictness to be specified. The Haskell Report specifies non-strict.
2025-04-29 03:12:29 +0200gorignak(~gorignak@user/gorignak) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2025-04-29 03:11:46 +0200 <c_wraith> Haskell isn't specified to be lazy, but it is specified to terminate if any evaluation order will do so. It's hard to get that behavior without default laziness
2025-04-29 03:10:31 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2025-04-29 03:08:22 +0200 <EvanR> (haskell isn't specified to be lazy, though I'm not sure how relevant it is to this)
2025-04-29 03:07:05 +0200 <EvanR> haskell is usually taken as using lazy evaluation while e.g. javascript is eager evaluation. If you were to specify "evaluation strategy is not specified", would that force you to write like haskell, or like javascript, or neither, if you didn't care about side effects, exceptions, and performance
2025-04-29 03:05:52 +0200notdabs(~Owner@2600:1700:69cf:9000:79ef:6a68:163c:c553) (Quit: Leaving)
2025-04-29 03:05:27 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-04-29 03:00:27 +0200euleritian(~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-135-001.176.6.pool.telefonica.de) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-04-29 03:00:26 +0200euleritian(~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-135-001.176.6.pool.telefonica.de)