Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
    jolod
    @jolod
    @Jell So does this also mean that in Idris you can have the same name for type constructors?
    Jean-Louis Giordano
    @Jell
    @jolod yes! Lists, Vectors and Heterogeneous Vectors all have the same type constructor names Nil and (::), which also means they can all be represented using the list notation [1,2,3]
    Jean-Louis Giordano
    @Jell
    (did I mention I really like Idris?)
    jolod
    @jolod
    That. Is. Super. Nice!
    Magnus Therning
    @magthe
    Here I thought I looking forward to a short quick stretch to get my Dhall experiment across the finishing line... took the whole day due to safety :/
    Erik Svedäng
    @eriksvedang
    so it's very safe now?
    Magnus Therning
    @magthe
    Haha, well, it's a little bit more complicated now.. is how I'd put it.
    Erik Svedäng
    @eriksvedang
    OK :)
    jolod
    @jolod
    @magthe Sounds like every Haskell beginner/skeptic ever. ;-)
    Erik Svedäng
    @eriksvedang
    when your dialogue scripting language suddenly becomes prolog...
    ENTRY {
      Is [CHARACTER] [CHARACTER] ? -> ARE_THEY_THE_SAME
    }
    
    ARE_THEY_THE_SAME (= arg0 arg1) {
      Yes
      Yeah!
      For sure
    }
    
    ARE_THEY_THE_SAME (/= arg0 arg1) {
      No
      Nope
      I don't think so
    }
    (also, sorry for creating a language that mixes C-style curly brackets and S-expressions :P)
    Magnus Therning
    @magthe
    @jolod to be specific, I have to use two fallbacks on the imports, whereas I first thought I could get away with only one.
    jolod
    @jolod
    @magthe I have no idea what that means. I only have a very high level idea of Dhall. :-)
    Magnus Therning
    @magthe
    Maybe something worth talking about at some point then.
    That and Nix.
    jolod
    @jolod
    Defunctionalization is something Clojurists love. It is captured by the "data > functions > macros" mantra.
    Jean-Louis Giordano
    @Jell
    oh I did not realize that!
    interesting
    The claim is simple: in a static type system, you must declare the shape of data ahead of time, but in a dynamic type system, the type can be, well, dynamic! It sounds self-evident, so much so that Rich Hickey has practically built a speaking career upon its emotional appeal. The only problem is it isn’t true.
    jolod
    @jolod
    @eriksvedang idk, I think any treatment of dynamic vs static is bound to be a failure, since it's comparing one orange to a whole garden of different apple trees. The critique from the dynamic camp is usually implicitly qualified with "[static typing] in a language that I can actually use to solve my problem", and proponents reply (as this blog does) with "sure, language X has some flaws, but look at these 10 different languages that all have one aspect of what you want".
    Sorry, the blog only listed 6 languages.
    jolod
    @jolod
    Other than that, the post is relevant, but I do feel that it strawmans a bit (without reading the original replies so I cannot say for sure) but the dynlang camp is usually the worse offenders of strawmanning, so whatever. It anyway over-reaches in the conclusion I think; the two arguments are not sufficient to conclude that statically typed systems (of some flavor) is at least as open and dynamically typed systems. In particular, I'm surprised that he didn't actually deal with the Maybe issue that Rich Hickey raises; he simply dismissed Rich Hickey's critique as "emotional" and "has built a career on". I suppose he would say that it's only about "being upfront with what you require" which misses the point that requirement can change, and then he would, I presume, shift the goal posts and say "sure, in Haskell, but not in these other six languages". On that note, I'm not sure that any of those languages actually solve all the problems that would occur. Most of the time, people argue that in Haskell something is a particular way, and then refer to another language when Haskell isn't perfect, without bringing in the problems that that difference has on other languages. So it's cherry picking the best of all the statically typed languages, which again, doesn't fly for someone that wants to actually program.
    Erik Svedäng
    @eriksvedang
    fair enough :)
    jolod
    @jolod
    @Jell Agree with everything in that post. I particularly like that he points out the "static types vs no static types" issue, e.g. while Python is considered dynamically typed, you usually don't treat typed dynamically.
    Maybe it is better to say that a program is dynamically typed (if it indeed e.g. changes the type of an object), rather than using "dynamically typed" as a statement about the language.
    Jean-Louis Giordano
    @Jell
    hey so I kinda volunteered to help out organize an FP mini-conference / workshop during FOSS north this year: https://foss-north.se/2020/
    (at chalmers)
    anyone interested in presenting something? kind of need to figure out a theme maybe
    jolod
    @jolod
    Workshop would be cool. Rarely any FP workshops around.