2025/05/07

Newest at the top

2025-05-08 00:01:23 +0200 <hellwolf> semantics
2025-05-08 00:01:20 +0200 <hellwolf> that's incorrect
2025-05-08 00:01:18 +0200 <hellwolf> otherwise storage or external messages sent twice
2025-05-08 00:01:10 +0200 <hellwolf> there you can't duplicate
2025-05-08 00:01:07 +0200 <hellwolf> so, I try to use linear-types only for effectful stuff
2025-05-08 00:00:38 +0200 <hellwolf> could be a next step in next version.
2025-05-08 00:00:27 +0200 <hellwolf> that's an interesting idea
2025-05-08 00:00:13 +0200 <tomsmeding> I'd rather say that every constructor in your GADT gets an additional field: the label
2025-05-08 00:00:02 +0200 <hellwolf> heh, yea, my domain happens to have small programs; safety is more important there, which I am trying to sell
2025-05-08 00:00:02 +0200 <hellwolf> 05-08 00:59 <tomsmeding> your users whose program now takes ages, will care
2025-05-07 23:59:30 +0200 <hellwolf> so anything that doesn't belong to a category, I call it "special constructor" in my GADT
2025-05-07 23:59:30 +0200 <hellwolf> 05-08 00:59 <tomsmeding> special constructor?
2025-05-07 23:59:22 +0200 <tomsmeding> your users whose program now takes ages, will care
2025-05-07 23:59:09 +0200 <hellwolf> who cares
2025-05-07 23:59:07 +0200 <hellwolf> I am a recovering conalist, so sometimes I still say, it's denotationally the same
2025-05-07 23:59:03 +0200 <tomsmeding> special constructor?
2025-05-07 23:58:49 +0200 <hellwolf> but that's introducing special constructor
2025-05-07 23:58:39 +0200 <tomsmeding> accelerate uses stablenames
2025-05-07 23:58:29 +0200 <hellwolf> labeling, I thought of it
2025-05-07 23:58:26 +0200 <hellwolf> yep
2025-05-07 23:58:21 +0200 <tomsmeding> either using `StableName`s, or by generating unique IDs for every created AST node using unsafePerformIO
2025-05-07 23:58:05 +0200 <hellwolf> without sharing, either you do a non-linear-type dup (\(x1, x2) -> _ produce a single diagram)
2025-05-07 23:57:58 +0200 <tomsmeding> there's another option you haven't mentioned yet: make the implicit haskell-heap-sharing of expressions visible
2025-05-07 23:56:58 +0200 <tomsmeding> your expression will be exponentially large
2025-05-07 23:56:53 +0200 <tomsmeding> fixing _complete_ lack of sharing using an optimiser is hopeless
2025-05-07 23:56:49 +0200 <hellwolf> the fact that I separate purity gives me choice
2025-05-07 23:56:36 +0200 <hellwolf> I try to avoid it
2025-05-07 23:56:34 +0200 <hellwolf> yes,
2025-05-07 23:56:31 +0200 <tomsmeding> but at a big ergonomics cost
2025-05-07 23:56:27 +0200 <hellwolf> 2. having explicit diagrams duplication in a helper function, similar to linear type versioned dup'l function, but not using linear types
2025-05-07 23:56:26 +0200 <tomsmeding> oh I see, linear types let you avoid the sharing issue indeed
2025-05-07 23:55:58 +0200 <hellwolf> it has two solutions: 1. don't care, denotational/conalism, give me an optimizer
2025-05-07 23:55:39 +0200 <hellwolf> of diagrams
2025-05-07 23:55:34 +0200 <hellwolf> that has duplication
2025-05-07 23:55:24 +0200 <hellwolf> varSharing is the version without lineartypes
2025-05-07 23:55:17 +0200 <hellwolf> right?
2025-05-07 23:55:15 +0200 <hellwolf> because of linear types, you don't share, you explicitly dup
2025-05-07 23:55:01 +0200 <hellwolf> varSharingL has a linear-type helped version: it avoids duplication, but sacrifice ergonomics
2025-05-07 23:54:36 +0200 <hellwolf> https://github.com/yolc-dev/yul-dsl-monorepo/blob/2b39ca47cb55324cab4eda36c0546ea1fb3d7aca/hs-pkgs… this has "lets"
2025-05-07 23:54:19 +0200 <hellwolf> https://github.com/yolc-dev/yul-dsl-monorepo/blob/2b39ca47cb55324cab4eda36c0546ea1fb3d7aca/hs-pkgs… this is an example of native-haskell pattern matching. there is a sharing problem, but I resolved it with exponential object. Not sure I can explain that today.
2025-05-07 23:54:15 +0200 <EvanR> let's let the let example loose
2025-05-07 23:53:10 +0200 <tomsmeding> sure
2025-05-07 23:53:02 +0200 <hellwolf> ah, okay, perhaps let's just leave it here and talk about it another day. I will just show you the "let" example
2025-05-07 23:52:46 +0200 <tomsmeding> it's 23:52 over here
2025-05-07 23:52:40 +0200 <tomsmeding> I'm interested, but not now :')
2025-05-07 23:52:31 +0200 <hellwolf> but bear with me... I haven't had write up, so I am now typing from scratch
2025-05-07 23:52:21 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2025-05-07 23:52:17 +0200 <hellwolf> I will get there, there is technique to avoid that; and the lineartype provided scenario is even more interesting to talk about.
2025-05-07 23:51:50 +0200 <tomsmeding> assuming you care about that :)
2025-05-07 23:51:41 +0200 <tomsmeding> an duplication is usually bad for performance