Newest at the top
| 2026-02-07 16:01:09 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-02-07 15:55:08 +0100 | <[exa]> | yeah I mean, these are the things that hurt most for long-running haskell |
| 2026-02-07 15:52:06 +0100 | <davean> | a few of them aren't strictly required, in that there are multiple valid evaluations |
| 2026-02-07 15:51:27 +0100 | <davean> | They're just people missusing the features |
| 2026-02-07 15:51:15 +0100 | <davean> | Those are the features that make haskell work |
| 2026-02-07 15:51:01 +0100 | <davean> | if they don't happen you're not haskell. |
| 2026-02-07 15:50:57 +0100 | <davean> | I mean those aren't mistakes, they're directly requested things to happen |
| 2026-02-07 15:50:25 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-02-07 15:50:15 +0100 | <davean> | Oh thsoe should look about the same? |
| 2026-02-07 15:50:03 +0100 | <[exa]> | not an actual leak, more like "unnecessary reference to a megablob doesn't just force itself away" |
| 2026-02-07 15:49:36 +0100 | <[exa]> | these https://wiki.haskell.org/index.php?title=Memory_leak |
| 2026-02-07 15:49:00 +0100 | <davean> | I don't know of any memory leaks with GHC ... |
| 2026-02-07 15:48:50 +0100 | <davean> | Why would there be memory leaks? |
| 2026-02-07 15:48:41 +0100 | <[exa]> | as in, the memory leaks are gonna look completely differently there than in ghc, right :D |
| 2026-02-07 15:48:20 +0100 | <davean> | I was curious! |
| 2026-02-07 15:48:15 +0100 | <davean> | Don't know! Haven't used it! |
| 2026-02-07 15:47:19 +0100 | <[exa]> | yeah good question, how does microhs actually work for longer-running stuff? |
| 2026-02-07 15:45:39 +0100 | juri_ | (~juri@84.19.175.187) juri_ |
| 2026-02-07 15:45:22 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-02-07 15:43:23 +0100 | <davean> | ah so it runs once. |
| 2026-02-07 15:41:54 +0100 | aha-engine | (~aha-engin@85-220-13-76.dsl.dynamic.simnet.is) (Quit: aha-engine) |
| 2026-02-07 15:41:49 +0100 | <[exa]> | davean: commandline thingy for generating scripts that then manage some other stuff |
| 2026-02-07 15:39:37 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-02-07 15:38:39 +0100 | Buliarous | (~gypsydang@46.232.210.139) Buliarous |
| 2026-02-07 15:37:38 +0100 | <davean> | I'm glad you were able to get haskell to run on it - what are you using haskell for on it? |
| 2026-02-07 15:34:06 +0100 | nschoe | (~nschoe@82-65-202-30.subs.proxad.net) nschoe |
| 2026-02-07 15:33:57 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-02-07 15:33:48 +0100 | nschoe | (~nschoe@2a01:e0a:8e:a190:9ee1:e472:fae2:1b2f) (Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in) |
| 2026-02-07 15:33:26 +0100 | <davean> | Back when you were getting your device I was moving everything to 10GbE though! |
| 2026-02-07 15:32:00 +0100 | <davean> | Before that its mostly just faster means less time talking, means less collisions |
| 2026-02-07 15:31:37 +0100 | <davean> | Wifi 6E is where things get a lot better |
| 2026-02-07 15:30:40 +0100 | <davean> | Which is fine if the radio spectrum is free, and you don't want more |
| 2026-02-07 15:30:28 +0100 | <davean> | So like the 100Mbps ethernet on that would probably be 1/4th of what the wifi its self can handle. |
| 2026-02-07 15:30:16 +0100 | juri_ | (~juri@212.86.45.136) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2026-02-07 15:30:06 +0100 | juri_ | (~juri@212.86.45.136) juri_ |
| 2026-02-07 15:30:00 +0100 | <davean> | 2009 |
| 2026-02-07 15:29:50 +0100 | <[exa]> | yeah like, the 802.11n is from 2010-ish no? |
| 2026-02-07 15:29:14 +0100 | <davean> | in real world conditions |
| 2026-02-07 15:29:09 +0100 | <davean> | even 2009 era wifi moves more than 100Mbps |
| 2026-02-07 15:27:46 +0100 | <davean> | (since an old wifi card will slow down everything within a decently large radius_ |
| 2026-02-07 15:27:25 +0100 | <davean> | Partially depends on what card you have in it, but not really? Most wifi has actually data rates massively faster than the HW limits of that. If you're also using an old wifi card its not normal in how much of the spectrum it occupies (hence the neigbor comment_ |
| 2026-02-07 15:25:17 +0100 | <[exa]> | it's a pretty much normal wifi, you have to limit the transmit power as with other routers |
| 2026-02-07 15:23:32 +0100 | <davean> | so much stuff I do doesn't even work at that speed |
| 2026-02-07 15:23:17 +0100 | <davean> | Well as long as you don't have too many neigbors :) |
| 2026-02-07 15:23:12 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2026-02-07 15:22:52 +0100 | <[exa]> | yeah |
| 2026-02-07 15:22:24 +0100 | <davean> | Man, you're really ok with 100Mbps peak? |
| 2026-02-07 15:21:37 +0100 | <davean> | If thats fast enough for you! I mean I'm sorry for any neigbors you have :-p |
| 2026-02-07 15:20:44 +0100 | <davean> | ... you are murdering your wifi |
| 2026-02-07 15:20:26 +0100 | <[exa]> | wifi at home :D |