2025/07/15

Newest at the top

2025-07-15 23:16:27 +0200dtman34(~dtman34@2601:447:d182:6512:c2f9:c3a:b83d:6490) dtman34
2025-07-15 23:15:37 +0200Fijxu(~Fijxu@user/fijxu) (Quit: XD!!)
2025-07-15 23:13:29 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2025-07-15 23:12:57 +0200falafel(~falafel@2a0c:5a87:3104:8f01::f709) falafel
2025-07-15 23:09:20 +0200 <geekosaur> (`select()` provides a timeout. it's not even implemented on most OSes, and when it is it isn't very reliable; often the only useful timeout is 0 for a quick poll)
2025-07-15 23:08:49 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-07-15 23:08:40 +0200 <geekosaur> non-threaded probably relies on it playing nicely with `select()`, which… good luck with that
2025-07-15 23:04:49 +0200Frostillicus(~Frostilli@pool-71-174-119-69.bstnma.fios.verizon.net) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2025-07-15 23:01:52 +0200takuan(~takuan@d8D86B9E9.access.telenet.be) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-07-15 22:58:19 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2025-07-15 22:56:16 +0200Philonous(~Philonous@user/philonous) Philonous
2025-07-15 22:55:56 +0200Philonous(~Philonous@user/philonous) (Server closed connection)
2025-07-15 22:54:23 +0200Frostillicus(~Frostilli@pool-71-174-119-69.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
2025-07-15 22:53:25 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-07-15 22:50:58 +0200notzmv(~umar@user/notzmv) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2025-07-15 22:50:48 +0200 <EvanR> threaded being more responsive by a lot
2025-07-15 22:50:39 +0200 <EvanR> jle`, I noticed a distinct difference in responsiveness between threaded and non-threaded
2025-07-15 22:42:26 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-07-15 22:41:53 +0200Frostillicus(~Frostilli@pool-71-174-119-69.bstnma.fios.verizon.net) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2025-07-15 22:38:42 +0200michalz(~michalz@185.246.207.197) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-07-15 22:38:01 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-07-15 22:34:24 +0200dutchie(~dutchie@user/dutchie) dutchie
2025-07-15 22:34:14 +0200tromp(~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:207a:b700:e4:7b01)
2025-07-15 22:33:03 +0200dutchie(~dutchie@user/dutchie) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-07-15 22:26:59 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2025-07-15 22:26:20 +0200Frostillicus(~Frostilli@pool-71-174-119-69.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
2025-07-15 22:20:23 +0200dtman34(~dtman34@2601:447:d182:6512:c2f9:c3a:b83d:6490) (Quit: ZNC 1.8.2+deb3.1+deb12u1 - https://znc.in)
2025-07-15 22:19:57 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-07-15 22:17:53 +0200 <jle`> is there a rough estimate on how accurate/precise Control.Concurrent.threadDelay aims to be? the input is in microseconds but ie would we expect a meaningful difference between 1_000_000 and 1_000_010
2025-07-15 22:15:05 +0200trickard_trickard
2025-07-15 22:09:04 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-07-15 22:07:40 +0200caubert(~caubert@user/caubert) caubert
2025-07-15 22:06:17 +0200 <ski> ("Erlog" by rvirding at <https://github.com/rvirding/erlog> is a Prolog interpreter implemented in Erlang, by one of the original Erlang people)
2025-07-15 22:06:16 +0200 <ski> er
2025-07-15 22:05:49 +0200 <ski> ("" by rvirding at < and for Erlang. Contribute to rvirding/erlog development by creating an account on GitHub.> is a Prolog interpreter implemented in Erlang, by one of the original Erlang people)
2025-07-15 22:05:17 +0200dutchie(~dutchie@user/dutchie) dutchie
2025-07-15 22:04:36 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-07-15 22:03:06 +0200dtman34(~dtman34@2601:447:d182:6512:c2f9:c3a:b83d:6490) dtman34
2025-07-15 22:01:57 +0200dutchie(~dutchie@user/dutchie) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2025-07-15 21:59:51 +0200 <ski> (Erlang was originally implemented in Prolog)
2025-07-15 21:58:00 +0200 <ski> claimes not both of `m' and `n' can hold, but acts like a query, asking to prove `m' and `n' (by assuming its negation, and trying to derive a contradiction, the empty clause `:-'))
2025-07-15 21:57:54 +0200 <ski> in Prolog, the Horn clause notation `p :- a,b,c' (`p', if `a' and `b' and `c') actually comes from the "disjunction-of-possibly-negated literals" notation `p,-a,-b,-c', where the `,' means "or" (and the previous `:' is a separation between positive and negative literals) (a Horn Clause is a Clause with at most one positive (unnegated) literal. with zero, `:- m,n', alternatively `?- m,n' strictly speaking
2025-07-15 21:55:16 +0200jmcantrell(~weechat@user/jmcantrell) jmcantrell
2025-07-15 21:53:43 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2025-07-15 21:53:21 +0200humasect(~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) humasect
2025-07-15 21:53:09 +0200 <ski> darkling : yes, `;' is "or" (disjunction) in Prolog, and `,' is "and" (conjunction). Erlang also separates multiple defining clauses of the same function with `;', which, logically speaking, makes less sense (`foos([ ]) -> ok; foos([X|Xs]) -> foo(X),foos(Xs).' is supposed to claim that both clauses hold true ..)
2025-07-15 21:52:12 +0200caubert(~caubert@user/caubert) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-07-15 21:51:29 +0200humasect(~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2025-07-15 21:51:25 +0200 <__monty__> There didn't use to be so many options for in depth Haskell chatting I suppose.
2025-07-15 21:50:52 +0200 <__monty__> Has ups and downs in activity.