2025/05/03

Newest at the top

2025-05-03 20:45:10 +0200ljdarj1(~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) ljdarj
2025-05-03 20:36:07 +0200 <[exa]> ah I meant the usual HKD
2025-05-03 20:34:31 +0200 <EvanR> ?
2025-05-03 20:34:16 +0200 <EvanR> higher order types
2025-05-03 20:34:13 +0200 <EvanR> what's the politically correct name for higher kinded types
2025-05-03 20:32:53 +0200j1n37-(~j1n37@user/j1n37) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2025-05-03 20:31:49 +0200j1n37(~j1n37@user/j1n37) j1n37
2025-05-03 20:31:20 +0200 <[exa]> hm, beam hides the references by higher-kinded types, not bad
2025-05-03 20:30:31 +0200peterbecich(~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) peterbecich
2025-05-03 20:29:01 +0200acidjnk_new3(~acidjnk@p200300d6e71c4f7604057216e123cf7a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) acidjnk
2025-05-03 20:27:13 +0200 <[exa]> ok well I guess I'm hitting the same wall as ORMs
2025-05-03 20:19:16 +0200 <[exa]> :]
2025-05-03 20:19:05 +0200 <[exa]> monochrom: nah the bottled one is called beer
2025-05-03 20:18:06 +0200tzh(~tzh@c-76-115-131-146.hsd1.or.comcast.net) tzh
2025-05-03 20:17:48 +0200 <monochrom> Um, is that code for LSD? >:)
2025-05-03 20:16:27 +0200acidjnk_new3(~acidjnk@p200300d6e71c4f76bcfd7e139b6b957f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-05-03 20:13:59 +0200Sgeo(~Sgeo@user/sgeo) Sgeo
2025-05-03 20:10:56 +0200[exa]pops a brainstorming booster bottle
2025-05-03 20:10:40 +0200 <[exa]> which looks convenient enough
2025-05-03 20:10:28 +0200 <[exa]> maybe I'll just need to invent some way to throw this at the library user
2025-05-03 20:09:47 +0200 <monochrom> Well, I would just say "use a Unique monad".
2025-05-03 20:09:20 +0200 <monochrom> OK the question of UIDs.
2025-05-03 20:08:36 +0200 <monochrom> (the "network" there just means graph, object graph, so again your vanilla record in which some fields are pointers to other records)
2025-05-03 20:08:34 +0200 <[exa]> not really, this issue is common to both
2025-05-03 20:07:54 +0200 <monochrom> Oh! Are we just looking at "network databases" such as in the dark ages vs "relational databases" such as in the modern enlightened time?
2025-05-03 20:07:49 +0200 <[exa]> but this time with blackjack and types
2025-05-03 20:07:32 +0200 <[exa]> yeah starting to look much more like another prolog reimplementation.
2025-05-03 20:01:59 +0200tromp(~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:31c9:5f27:18bf:4d4e)
2025-05-03 19:57:04 +0200 <monochrom> May I also tempt you into taking a look at the Curry language so you don't even have to use Prolog syntax! (It uses Haskell syntax.) >:)
2025-05-03 19:55:30 +0200 <[exa]> ok I should certainly go more in the prolog path (query & assert) instead of plain decode&encode
2025-05-03 19:54:34 +0200 <[exa]> yeah it looks like it's gonna be a view
2025-05-03 19:54:18 +0200 <EvanR> an arbitrary report
2025-05-03 19:54:04 +0200 <EvanR> is a haskell value just a report or view of the database
2025-05-03 19:53:32 +0200 <[exa]> EvanR: as a haskell value.
2025-05-03 19:53:30 +0200 <monochrom> "The first soap opera written in datalog." >:)
2025-05-03 19:52:37 +0200 <monochrom> May I use this example? name(mary,"Mary"). name(alice,"Alice"). name(alice2,"Alice"). crush(mary,alice). crush(alice,alice2). crush(alice2,mary).
2025-05-03 19:50:14 +0200 <EvanR> I'm not sure what use as objects means
2025-05-03 19:49:27 +0200 <[exa]> EvanR: probably an entity then. I'm not trying to dodge IDs, more like trying to find what name and type the functions that "do it" should be so that I'm preferably separating the objectness and entityness of the things as well as possible. I want to use these things as objects when they get deserialized.
2025-05-03 19:48:31 +0200 <EvanR> if you just have a set of unique tuples the tuple itself can be the ID
2025-05-03 19:48:22 +0200 <monochrom> Alternatively if it turns out RDF = prolog but in XML syntax, I can work with that too. >:)
2025-05-03 19:48:04 +0200 <[exa]> yes datalog is prolog without actual computation
2025-05-03 19:48:01 +0200 <EvanR> if object = entity, then you need IDs, to name the entity
2025-05-03 19:47:53 +0200 <monochrom> I don't know datalog. May I think in prolog instead?
2025-05-03 19:47:25 +0200 <monochrom> Then you hash (the value and a serial number).
2025-05-03 19:47:12 +0200 <[exa]> monochrom: imagine datalog where all facts are `sompredicate(somesubject, someobject).`
2025-05-03 19:46:29 +0200 <[exa]> monochrom: yes (in the future they might differentiate by people attaching stuff to either identifier)
2025-05-03 19:46:13 +0200 <monochrom> Frankly I don't know RDF.
2025-05-03 19:46:12 +0200michalz(~michalz@185.246.207.221)
2025-05-03 19:45:43 +0200 <monochrom> Do you have a scenerio where there are two objects, all their fields have the same value, but you would prefer to call them 2 objects rather than 1 object? This question determines whether you can just hash the values.
2025-05-03 19:45:27 +0200 <[exa]> again with RDF you more like "prove that something exists by finding all its bits in the heap" instead of deserializing per se