Newest at the top
| 2025-04-29 14:23:23 +0200 | <shapr> | yin: yes! |
| 2025-04-29 14:23:19 +0200 | <yin> | wait, are you talking about *this* channel? |
| 2025-04-29 14:23:18 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | maybe :p |
| 2025-04-29 14:23:03 +0200 | <shapr> | soon it'll be you! |
| 2025-04-29 14:22:59 +0200 | <shapr> | tomsmeding: a decent chunk of the early crowd now have their own PhD students |
| 2025-04-29 14:22:39 +0200 | <shapr> | yin: you're here now! hurrah! |
| 2025-04-29 14:22:37 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | it's cool to see that some of those are still around :) |
| 2025-04-29 14:22:28 +0200 | <yin> | i wish i thought of that when i was teaching myself haskell |
| 2025-04-29 14:22:10 +0200 | <shapr> | Yeah, early days were Igloo and Heffalump and ski and a few others. |
| 2025-04-29 14:21:43 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | or non-ideas |
| 2025-04-29 14:21:39 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | having someone to bounce ideas off is great, yeah |
| 2025-04-29 14:21:24 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | hah |
| 2025-04-29 14:21:18 +0200 | <shapr> | Mind you, that's why I started this IRC channel, because I was unable to teach myself Haskell |
| 2025-04-29 14:21:05 +0200 | <shapr> | Another reason this is working better is that I'm in a reading group, where I get stuck is not where exarkun gets stuck. |
| 2025-04-29 14:20:27 +0200 | <yin> | ty |
| 2025-04-29 14:20:19 +0200 | <shapr> | yin: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1404132.Denotational_Semantics |
| 2025-04-29 14:20:11 +0200 | <shapr> | I think partially because it's very concrete. |
| 2025-04-29 14:20:05 +0200 | <yin> | shapr: which book is it? |
| 2025-04-29 14:19:50 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | that's cool! |
| 2025-04-29 14:19:44 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | lol |
| 2025-04-29 14:19:39 +0200 | <shapr> | I've bounced off several category theory books previously, but this 1976(?) book is working for me. |
| 2025-04-29 14:19:33 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | but it definitely has uses, and it's sometimes a really good abstraction |
| 2025-04-29 14:19:29 +0200 | ljdarj | (~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 14:19:25 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | now, lots of CS considers laziness a bad idea too |
| 2025-04-29 14:19:13 +0200 | <shapr> | Yeah, I could see laziness being unimportant in pure math. |
| 2025-04-29 14:19:01 +0200 | tomsmeding | would probably have the same, just given the title, despite actually having some formal math education |
| 2025-04-29 14:18:59 +0200 | shapr | thinks |
| 2025-04-29 14:18:40 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | I can imagine :p |
| 2025-04-29 14:18:30 +0200 | <shapr> | Because I have zero formal math education, it's rough going |
| 2025-04-29 14:18:15 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | shapr: I'm thinking, but perhaps laziness is one of those CS-only abstractions? |
| 2025-04-29 14:18:09 +0200 | <shapr> | I'm reading "Denotational Semantics: The Scott-Strachey Approach to Programming Language Theory" with exarkun |
| 2025-04-29 14:17:44 +0200 | <shapr> | Something like that. |
| 2025-04-29 14:17:42 +0200 | <shapr> | Or maybe "CS *must have* a tiny view" ? |
| 2025-04-29 14:17:28 +0200 | <yin> | computers were a mistake and we got too carried away |
| 2025-04-29 14:17:12 +0200 | <shapr> | So I currently lean towards "CS has a smaller view because computers are so tiny right now" |
| 2025-04-29 14:17:10 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | sometimes math happens to have stuff that's useful for performance too, like Cayley transformation (i.e. "difference lists") or Coyoneda (which I have no clue about, but iirc was a generalisation that can be used to reassociate (>>=) where Cayley reassociates (<>)) |
| 2025-04-29 14:16:48 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:81f6:6a75:5fad:c9b4) |
| 2025-04-29 14:16:43 +0200 | <shapr> | Early in the book I'm reading Joseph Stoy relays that Dana Scott says "we can't have real functions in a computer because computers are so small compared to all the values" |
| 2025-04-29 14:16:03 +0200 | <shapr> | tomsmeding: that's a good point, hm |
| 2025-04-29 14:16:01 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | we have various abstractions to deal with our petty performance concerns |
| 2025-04-29 14:15:49 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | anything that involves "ensuring you don't compute a value more than once" is something that CS cares about and math does not |
| 2025-04-29 14:15:29 +0200 | <yin> | shapr: no problem |
| 2025-04-29 14:15:26 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | well the easy cases center around math, as a whole, not caring about "performance" -- it's not even well-defined what that means in math world |
| 2025-04-29 14:15:12 +0200 | <shapr> | yin: oh, I'm using kitty, but I've only used the image kitten, I'll try the LaTeX plugin, thanks! |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:55 +0200 | <shapr> | tomsmeding: got any in mind that programming does better than math? |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:42 +0200 | <yin> | shapr: i'm using irssi and kitty terminal. although i don't remember using it, kitty has a latex plugin so that would satisfy my needs |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:38 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | (for programming, that is) |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:32 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | sometimes CS has better ones |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:23 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | math does have good abstractions sometimes |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:14 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | never been there, but given the subject area, I would be highly surprised if they don't have a channel somehow that's just about semantics :P |