|
I tried to compile some C code, but I was told to get a.out
|
# ? May 11, 2012 10:23 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 14:20 |
|
tef posted:I think my favourite thing (of late) to come out of the haskell swamp is this so what is that a compiler error or something I thought one of haskell's raisons d'etre was strong static typing always
|
# ? May 11, 2012 13:24 |
|
lamentable dustman posted:didn't read much of this but learn java because there literally isn't enough java programers in the world XY problem
|
# ? May 11, 2012 19:53 |
|
java is really easy
|
# ? May 11, 2012 19:55 |
|
much like your mom
|
# ? May 11, 2012 20:00 |
|
Java is the best.
|
# ? May 11, 2012 20:08 |
|
Shaggar posted:Java is the best. Sniep posted:much like your mom (US mothers day reminder)
|
# ? May 11, 2012 20:34 |
|
Shaggar posted:The JVM is the best.
|
# ? May 11, 2012 21:37 |
|
JVM is hiding out in barcelona because he never paid any taxes on either delta heavy tour, lol
|
# ? May 11, 2012 23:35 |
|
Internaut! posted:so what is that a compiler error or something I mean the point is that it's disabled by default but you can enable it while developing if you don't feel like fixing other parts of your code. obviously if you use that for production builds you're missing the entire point of haskell
|
# ? May 11, 2012 23:47 |
|
yaoi prophet posted:I mean the point is that it's disabled by default but you can enable it while developing if you don't feel like fixing other parts of your code. obviously if you use that for production builds you're missing the entire point of haskell if you use haskell for production builds you're missing the entire point of haskell
|
# ? May 12, 2012 01:21 |
|
Char posted:if you use haskell for production builds you're missing the entire point of haskell
|
# ? May 12, 2012 01:33 |
|
Janin posted:what else would you use haskell for? this is a trick question right
|
# ? May 12, 2012 01:37 |
|
Char posted:this is a trick question right between its strong type system, good performance, and easy C binding system, it's practically ideal for writing reliable production services. I can't really think of what else you'd use it for; static typing is annoying for small scripts, and Haskell binaries are too large to use in embedded systems.
|
# ? May 12, 2012 01:53 |
|
i thought validated languages were a solved problem with ada
|
# ? May 12, 2012 02:15 |
|
Janin posted:I can't really think of what else you'd use it for; static typing is annoying for small scripts, and Haskell binaries are too large to use in embedded systems. qft, if you link hxt which is one of the heavy-duty xml processing libraries you get like 30 extra megs on your binary, 20 if you strip it i dunno if i agree about it being annoying for small scripts though, it just catches your stupid logic errors at compile time instead of runtime. then again it can be annoying dealing with Text values and having to throw T.pack and T.unpack everywhere because some other module uses Strings
|
# ? May 12, 2012 02:17 |
|
id tech 6 is going to be done in haskell and carmack is going to ship you a certificate of code validity with every copy of doom 4
|
# ? May 12, 2012 02:22 |
|
ppp posted:i thought validated languages were a solved problem with ada yaoi prophet posted:qft, if you link hxt which is one of the heavy-duty xml processing libraries you get like 30 extra megs on your binary, 20 if you strip it why yes, I would like to install three hundred megs of dependencies to parse a 1kB xml document!!!
|
# ? May 12, 2012 02:42 |
|
i take it all back i didn't realise janin would show up while i was taking cheap shots at haskell i'm in over my head here
|
# ? May 12, 2012 02:49 |
|
janined again
|
# ? May 12, 2012 02:56 |
|
Janin posted:you can write validated code in any language; advanced features like those in haskell's type system just make it easier. It just sucks that some things like 'forall' for types ends up being overloaded depending on what compiler extension is plugged in.
|
# ? May 12, 2012 02:57 |
|
Internaut! posted:speaking of haskell janin how painless is C and C++ interop, I've taken this little clojure side project as far as it can go and it's been fun but it's not like I actually planned to suggest dropping a JVM bollock into our core trade switching punchbowl Bindings to old-fashioned C can be a *little* iffy if your library's interface uses language features that don't have a direct Haskell equivalent, such as static global initialisation. These are widely regarded as poor design, so they aren't common, but if you're writing a binding to a library written in the '80s then you're in for some adventure. Bindings to modern C are trivially easy, there are tools that will parse C header files and generate all the stubs for you. Runtime overhead is low since calling a foreign function is literally just a standard C procedure call. Basically you just say "here's a header, here's the function I want" and then you compile and you've got a usable binding.
|
# ? May 12, 2012 02:59 |
|
MononcQc posted:It just sucks that some things like 'forall' for types ends up being overloaded depending on what compiler extension is plugged in. I try to avoid all the scary-named extensions so maybe there's some out there that do additional weird stuff with it, idk.
|
# ? May 12, 2012 03:02 |
|
wait how do you generate the foreign import declarations from header files
|
# ? May 12, 2012 03:41 |
|
yaoi prophet posted:wait how do you generate the foreign import declarations from header files very carefully
|
# ? May 12, 2012 03:47 |
|
yaoi prophet posted:wait how do you generate the foreign import declarations from header files code:
code:
code:
TOO SCSI FOR MY CAT fucked around with this message at 04:19 on May 12, 2012 |
# ? May 12, 2012 04:05 |
|
drat i didn't know about that, that's pretty awesome
|
# ? May 12, 2012 04:10 |
|
the one feature i really wish haskell had was the ability to say 'ok what type does x have to be for this to typecheck', you can do it manually via implicits (which is the only time i've ever seen anybody use implicits) but having something like agda's holes would be gr8
|
# ? May 12, 2012 07:20 |
|
Janin posted:Bindings to modern C are trivially easy, there are tools that will parse C header files and generate all the stubs for you. Runtime overhead is low since calling a foreign function is literally just a standard C procedure call. Basically you just say "here's a header, here's the function I want" and then you compile and you've got a usable binding. perfect, and how about the reverse? this code chunk I'm looking at has hundreds of C tests making direct function calls, if there's an easy way I can adapt/reuse those tests then that would both save a lot of time and make the approach easier to sell up
|
# ? May 12, 2012 15:28 |
|
yaoi prophet posted:the one feature i really wish haskell had was the ability to say 'ok what type does x have to be for this to typecheck', you can do it manually via implicits (which is the only time i've ever seen anybody use implicits) but having something like agda's holes would be gr8 Internaut! posted:perfect, and how about the reverse? this code chunk I'm looking at has hundreds of C tests making direct function calls, if there's an easy way I can adapt/reuse those tests then that would both save a lot of time and make the approach easier to sell up
|
# ? May 12, 2012 16:47 |
|
Janin posted:I don't understand what this means, or how implicit parameters would support it. Could you give an example? code:
|
# ? May 12, 2012 20:20 |
|
http://utf-8.jp/public/aaencode.html
|
# ? May 12, 2012 20:35 |
|
the only thing that bugs me is new languages arbitrarily giving old concepts/structures/architectures new names but whatever
|
# ? May 12, 2012 20:44 |
|
I am sorry that, instead of educating you, the leaders in this language community have given you lies and fear. That was shameful. I recommend learning how statements in JS are actually terminated (and in which cases they are not terminated), so that you can write code that you find beautiful.
|
# ? May 12, 2012 20:52 |
|
JawnV6 posted:I am sorry that, instead of educating you, the leaders in this language community have given you lies and fear. That was shameful. I recommend learning how statements in JS are actually terminated (and in which cases they are not terminated), so that you can write code that you find beautiful. i like javascript as much as the next guy but the people who write it are terrible
|
# ? May 12, 2012 21:00 |
|
fidel sarcastro posted:i like yospos as much as the next guy but the people who post in it are terrible
|
# ? May 12, 2012 21:22 |
|
im kinda pissed at java guys, they act like gc is super cool and everyone should use it and then when your heap gets over a couple gigs they're like "oh, you were going to *use* that heap? lol sucks to be you". at this point it looks like my best option is to break the one monster jvm into a bunch of little ones that can full collect independently and do something dumb to serialize requests to each baby jvm. all because I'm too dumb to manage my own memory and don't get to have memory pools
|
# ? May 12, 2012 23:06 |
|
javascript is super cool except if you want to do something useful
|
# ? May 12, 2012 23:07 |
|
actually even then it's kind of poo poo
|
# ? May 12, 2012 23:08 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 14:20 |
|
javascript is how you tell whether you're using a lovely language, by whether it makes JS look good or bad. js is the SI standard for meh in PL design
|
# ? May 12, 2012 23:13 |