Newest at the top
| 2025-12-18 23:15:35 +0100 | takuan | (~takuan@d8D86B9E9.access.telenet.be) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-18 23:15:15 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-12-18 23:10:05 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-18 23:09:16 +0100 | lambda_gibbon | (~lambda_gi@208.83.175.39) |
| 2025-12-18 23:09:08 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-81-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) |
| 2025-12-18 23:05:44 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@71.84.33.135) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2025-12-18 23:03:36 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> And immutable structures don't need synchronization. |
| 2025-12-18 23:01:03 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> I'm pretty sure that haskell is one of the most safe environments to do threading, because having to be explicit about effects also makes it easier to see when synchronization is needed. |
| 2025-12-18 22:58:55 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2025-12-18 22:56:33 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@71.84.33.135) peterbecich |
| 2025-12-18 22:55:35 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-81-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2025-12-18 22:54:18 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-18 22:51:16 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-81-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) |
| 2025-12-18 22:51:02 +0100 | trickard | (~trickard@cpe-81-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-12-18 22:46:47 +0100 | gabiruh | (~gabiruh@vps19177.publiccloud.com.br) gabiruh |
| 2025-12-18 22:46:23 +0100 | gabiruh_ | (~gabiruh@vps19177.publiccloud.com.br) (Quit: ZNC 1.7.5 - https://znc.in) |
| 2025-12-18 22:43:22 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2025-12-18 22:39:09 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> Until SIMD support in GHC becomes fully mature, it'll be very difficult to compete with Rust, and the simplest way might simply be to FFI to C/C++/Rust in the interim. FFI on its own is relatively easy, concurrency in Haskell is also easy, but once you mix FFI and concurrency, whether it's Haskell specific or not, it becomes a bit more of a headache. |
| 2025-12-18 22:38:30 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-18 22:38:04 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> But either case, is it worth trying to specialize in the concurrency + FFI combo? |
| 2025-12-18 22:37:42 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> The example I was tossed was green threads (virtual threads) in FFI |
| 2025-12-18 22:27:42 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-12-18 22:22:43 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-18 22:22:13 +0100 | dolio | (~dolio@130.44.140.168) dolio |
| 2025-12-18 22:16:48 +0100 | Pozyomka | (~pyon@user/pyon) pyon |
| 2025-12-18 22:14:49 +0100 | dolio | (~dolio@130.44.140.168) (Quit: ZNC 1.10.1 - https://znc.in) |
| 2025-12-18 22:11:15 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2025-12-18 22:04:40 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-18 21:55:46 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2025-12-18 21:54:01 +0100 | lambda_gibbon | (~lambda_gi@208.83.175.39) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-12-18 21:51:00 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-18 21:50:51 +0100 | Googulator73 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-48e4-3c18-a4bd-1bda-7c8b.pool6.digikabel.hu) |
| 2025-12-18 21:50:43 +0100 | Googulator75 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-48e4-3c18-a4bd-1bda-7c8b.pool6.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-12-18 21:48:52 +0100 | lambda_gibbon | (~lambda_gi@208.83.175.39) |
| 2025-12-18 21:47:53 +0100 | L29Ah | (~L29Ah@wikipedia/L29Ah) () |
| 2025-12-18 21:46:11 +0100 | michalz | (~michalz@185.246.207.193) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-18 21:43:44 +0100 | <sprout> | whether it's exceptionally difficult for Haskell is debatable |
| 2025-12-18 21:43:20 +0100 | <sprout> | Liamzee: your AI gave you a statement of fact that is true for any language |
| 2025-12-18 21:43:13 +0100 | ljdarj1 | ljdarj |
| 2025-12-18 21:43:13 +0100 | ljdarj | (~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-12-18 21:41:11 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> Go? |
| 2025-12-18 21:41:03 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> Does Py etc use blocking FFI? |
| 2025-12-18 21:41:03 +0100 | ljdarj1 | (~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) ljdarj |
| 2025-12-18 21:40:13 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-12-18 21:39:08 +0100 | <monochrom> | However, none of those 4 force you to use those safe idioms. That further cuts down the candidates to 0. |
| 2025-12-18 21:38:23 +0100 | <monochrom> | As a first-order approximation: Mutex is not childsafe unless used under Haskell's bracket idiom or Python's recent "with" idiom or C++'s RAII idiom. That immediately cuts down the candidates to just 4: Haskell, Python, C++, maybe Rust. |
| 2025-12-18 21:38:22 +0100 | <sprout> | Liamzee: that wasn't what the AI stated. and FFI-ing into something that isn't threadsafe of course is going to give you problems, no matter the language |
| 2025-12-18 21:36:57 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> The AI comment was: "every language with worse concurrency", i.e, Py is an example because of how hard concurrency is, and Go is apparently another example. |
| 2025-12-18 21:36:46 +0100 | l0ckna | (~obr@2001:4bb8:103:9f41:2b3f:110b:6da3:4d72) (Quit: Leaving) |
| 2025-12-18 21:36:01 +0100 | <int-e> | brainfuck |