Newest at the top
| 2025-11-11 03:50:21 +0100 | <geekosaur> | typeclasses |
| 2025-11-11 03:50:18 +0100 | <jreicher> | Took me ages to unlearn that expectation |
| 2025-11-11 03:50:14 +0100 | <geekosaur> | and patsyns |
| 2025-11-11 03:50:11 +0100 | <jreicher> | The thing that really broke my brain when I looked at Lisp (after doing functional) is that there isn't an implicit eval of an expression in head possition. |
| 2025-11-11 03:49:46 +0100 | <EvanR> | up to three |
| 2025-11-11 03:49:33 +0100 | <EvanR> | shoot |
| 2025-11-11 03:49:32 +0100 | <geekosaur> | module name/qualifier |
| 2025-11-11 03:49:14 +0100 | <EvanR> | every [capitalized] name has two independent bindings, type and constructor |
| 2025-11-11 03:48:50 +0100 | <monochrom> | Criminals. |
| 2025-11-11 03:48:17 +0100 | <jreicher> | That's Lisp-2. Lisp-1 is not like that |
| 2025-11-11 03:48:16 +0100 | <monochrom> | BASIC: Every name has two independent bindings: number and string. |
| 2025-11-11 03:48:03 +0100 | <monochrom> | Lisp: Every name has two independent bindings: value and function. |
| 2025-11-11 03:47:39 +0100 | <monochrom> | No no no, the original sin belonged to BASIC and Lisp. Yes I'm putting them on the same line. |
| 2025-11-11 03:47:37 +0100 | <geekosaur> | awk doesn't have arrays/lists, so you use its "associative arrays" as if they were |
| 2025-11-11 03:47:19 +0100 | <jreicher> | Personally I'm a fan of that bad boy. |
| 2025-11-11 03:47:07 +0100 | <geekosaur> | yes |
| 2025-11-11 03:47:00 +0100 | <jreicher> | I thought the original sin belonged to awk? |
| 2025-11-11 03:46:11 +0100 | <geekosaur> | you would not normally use a hash as a list unless it's sparse |
| 2025-11-11 03:45:15 +0100 | <geekosaur> | there are three types: scalar, list, hash |
| 2025-11-11 03:45:13 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2025-11-11 03:45:02 +0100 | <geekosaur> | you're still stuck somewhere insane |
| 2025-11-11 03:44:31 +0100 | <monochrom> | What have I done?! >:) |
| 2025-11-11 03:44:20 +0100 | <EvanR> | even better |
| 2025-11-11 03:44:09 +0100 | <EvanR> | oh list is a hashtable? |
| 2025-11-11 03:43:32 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) humasect |
| 2025-11-11 03:42:42 +0100 | <geekosaur> | they called it list |
| 2025-11-11 03:42:31 +0100 | <geekosaur> | perl didn't call it array, @x is not %x |
| 2025-11-11 03:41:38 +0100 | <EvanR> | so perl and PHP were justified in calling their hashtable "array" xD |
| 2025-11-11 03:40:29 +0100 | monochrom | is looking at Python and Perl. |
| 2025-11-11 03:40:25 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-11-11 03:40:10 +0100 | <monochrom> | Hell, s/array/hash table/g |
| 2025-11-11 03:39:49 +0100 | <EvanR> | even in normal programming, you rarely care about what an array "really is", hence the big O 1 array myth |
| 2025-11-11 03:38:58 +0100 | <EvanR> | even in "normal math" you really rarely care about what a function "really is" |
| 2025-11-11 03:37:56 +0100 | <EvanR> | instead of the implementation |
| 2025-11-11 03:37:42 +0100 | <EvanR> | the structural set theory with sets elements and relations gets closer to type theory by emphasizing the domain and codomain of functions (relations) as the important part |
| 2025-11-11 03:37:27 +0100 | <jreicher> | I'm tempted to say that's because the type theory doesn't need to know the details... ;) |
| 2025-11-11 03:36:35 +0100 | <monochrom> | Oh, type theory says functions are primitive. :) |
| 2025-11-11 03:36:31 +0100 | <EvanR> | which gives haskell room to call functions functions |
| 2025-11-11 03:36:21 +0100 | <jreicher> | EvanR: true, but I think even for relations I've seen more set-theoretic presentations than not. |
| 2025-11-11 03:35:58 +0100 | <EvanR> | it could even be abstractified using category theory |
| 2025-11-11 03:35:45 +0100 | <jreicher> | Leary: yes, thank you. |
| 2025-11-11 03:35:43 +0100 | Googulator53 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-0180-8127-ba79-55a7-6f29.pool6.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-11-11 03:35:42 +0100 | <EvanR> | e.g. it could be implemented as a relation plus the functional condition, where relations are primitive |
| 2025-11-11 03:35:41 +0100 | Googulator92 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-0180-8127-ba79-55a7-6f29.pool6.digikabel.hu) |
| 2025-11-11 03:35:14 +0100 | <jreicher> | monochrom: yeah, that's what I expected. Can't shake the feeling it deserves explicit discussion, but maybe not. |
| 2025-11-11 03:35:13 +0100 | <Leary> | jreicher: You might be interested in my (as yet unpublished) https://github.com/LSLeary/native-cont library; it provides a safe non-IO interface to the primops. |
| 2025-11-11 03:34:36 +0100 | <EvanR> | jreicher, a function is not always implemented as a set in math |
| 2025-11-11 03:33:48 +0100 | <monochrom> | Captured in the middle. The control searches for the matching prompt, captures everything between now and that. |
| 2025-11-11 03:33:25 +0100 | <Leary> | Of course, it's captured. |
| 2025-11-11 03:32:56 +0100 | <jreicher> | Alexis |