|
rust looks tempting.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
i want to get in early with some language so i can write a really lovely library that is bad but everyone has to use it because it doesnt exist yet and then i can just say "i wrote x" for the rest of myl ife to get jobs
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
USSMICHELLEBACHMAN posted:i want to get in early with some language so i can write a really lovely library that is bad but everyone has to use it because it doesnt exist yet and then i can just say "i wrote x" for the rest of myl ife to get jobs me too and i've tried, but the problem is whatever new language you write that library for probably won't take off
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
that's why i'm biding my time. i'm gonna pick something like, i dunno, an html templating language, something that cant even be used because no one is making web servers or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
USSMICHELLEBACHMAN posted:rust looks tempting. if only so you can pick it up and then put it down so when people ask you later you can be like, "yeah my rust is a bit rusty"
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Stringent posted:if only so you can pick it up and then put it down so when people ask you later you can be like, "yeah my rust is a bit rusty" wish your posting was rusty
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
from a "learning functional programming" point of view I'd recommend ml over haskell just so you wouldn't get distracted with haskell's peculiarities like lazy evaluation I'm biased because I like ml better to be honest
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
if you're on the .net platform, tbh f# would make a pleasing introduction
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
when i grow up i want to be erik meijer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTSQlYX5DU0
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
nimrod is good poo poo i like it more than rust
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:24
|
|
|
tef posted:if you've already done ML or similar, you might not get that much from haskell. if you've only been doing OO languages, you will likely find it weird and hard, but you might pick up stuff along the way ehh the relentless purity and laziness forces a different way of thinking also laziness lets u replace macros as well in like 90% of the situations u wanna use them
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
neither f# or ml are pure though right? so you don't get an introduction to side effects or learn why mapM exists and is different from map, or consider IO actions as first class (which is something that bites c# programmers, see Erik Meijer's Curse Of The Excluded Middle talk)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
tbh I think both the best and worst parts of laziness can be summed up in the functioncode:code:bad sides: there's essentially no way of knowing that you need a particular variety of merge sort for this to work, the runtime is basically impossible to work out analytically and instead was tested extensively, and even after that it's still slower than handwriting your own loop gonadic io fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
AlsoD posted:neither f# or ml are pure though right? so you don't get an introduction to side effects or learn why mapM exists and is different from map, or consider IO actions as first class (which is something that bites c# programmers, see Erik Meijer's Curse Of The Excluded Middle talk) i think this is it in text form? http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2611829 (a lot of it is going over my head, but i still enjoy trying to read these things  )
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
btw this is the most yospos thing ever https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTSQlYX5DU0&t=640s 10m 40s in
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Dicky B posted:nimrod is good poo poo i like it more than rust yeah nimrod looks good too
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:ehh the relentless purity and laziness forces a different way of thinking yeah, but in terms of the biggies of functional programming: adts + functional composition, it owns. i mean i am just recommending one microsoft language over another. as for the relentless monads and currying, eh, i can live without them. quote:also laziness lets u replace macros as well in like 90% of the situations u wanna use them yeah, this is the other big win for lazyness but weirdly enough i rarely want to use macros: they're really good for adding a huge barrier to maintenance and there is usually another way within the existing language semantics and flow control.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
AlsoD posted:neither f# or ml are pure though right? so you don't get an introduction to side effects or learn why mapM exists and is different from map, or consider IO actions as first class (which is something that bites c# programmers, see Erik Meijer's Curse Of The Excluded Middle talk) meanwhile strict variants of haskell have map which handles monads + functions too
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
prefect posted:i think this is it in text form? http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2611829 that's is yeah. basically the problem is that when you mix lazy evaluation and side effects, the effects happen in a hard to predict order. the same thing happens with haskell's map if you have hidden side effects. this is why haskell makes side effects explicit and so you can't actually use map, you have to use mapM which ensures that the side effects happen sequentially. unfortunately this need for sequentiality means that you can't parallelise it necessarily (like you can with the side effect free map) and you can't really consume the output lazily since all the side effects need to happen before you get any output at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
tef posted:meanwhile strict variants of haskell have map which handles monads + functions too sure. i'm not a huge fan of laziness (which is one of the reasons I was looking at Rust). none of the strict haskell dialects are out of the 'research prototype' stage though, unless by "variant" you mean 'other language' i.e. ml in which case i stand by what I said a few posts ago. e: this is still from the perspective of learning a functional language to make your c# better, not for actually doing work in gonadic io fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
AlsoD posted:that's is yeah. basically the problem is that when you mix lazy evaluation and side effects, the effects happen in a hard to predict order. the same thing happens with haskell's map if you have hidden side effects. yeah laziness and io do not mix at all. th solution is an insane continuation passing style coroutine thing that has like 6 type paramemter (2 of which are useless wankery but still)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
lol, pipes basically people should just make their io strict and it's about as complicated as in any other language. if you really want lazy io then be prepared to have to learn a whole new complicated library with a bunch of custom operators.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
USSMICHELLEBACHMAN posted:i want to get in early with some language so i can write a really lovely library that is bad but everyone has to use it because it doesnt exist yet and then i can just say "i wrote x" for the rest of myl ife to get jobs works for Keith Packard 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
tef posted:btw this is the most yospos thing ever he's talking about a getter than throws an exception if the value isn't there -- does that mean the program terminates in this case? (apologies for what is probably a dumb question)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
prefect posted:he's talking about a getter than throws an exception if the value isn't there -- does that mean the program terminates in this case? only if you don't handle that exception. his point is that if the type system doesn't mandate that you deal with the possible exception (like checked exceptions in java and option types in functional(ish) langs), it could cause a runtime crash which would cause the program to terminate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
AlsoD posted:only if you don't handle that exception. his point is that if the type system doesn't mandate that you deal with the possible exception (like checked exceptions in java and option types in functional(ish) langs), it could cause a runtime crash which would cause the program to terminate. so option types are a way to check exceptions without doing java's mandated checked exceptions? (he says that everybody hates checked exceptions)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
prefect posted:so option types are a way to check exceptions without doing java's mandated checked exceptions? (he says that everybody hates checked exceptions) yeah, think of option types like possibly-null values except that you can't get access to the value without explicitly checking for null. this was, null-pointer exceptions simply can't happen. this is alsowhy erik meijer says that he wishes null wasn't included in c# so that option types are the only way to get nullable references but it's too late now. the slightly more advanced version is rather that just having one failure option, null, you might want 2 or 3 - one for a io error, one for an empty file or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
hey everyone for those of you that complain about PHP not having a specification like you actually want to read a huge pointless boring document of dry technical minutiae... have i got news for you
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
tef posted:when i grow up i want to be erik meijer He's been doing the ienumerable / iobservable duality thing for years and it's still amusing to see. He also loves Visual Basic, which is certainly odd for a PL guy, but I understand why.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
visual basic for dos was awesome. it had a form drawer that made text based interfaces
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Tiny Bug Child posted:hey everyone for those of you that complain about PHP not having a specification like you actually want to read a huge pointless boring document of dry technical minutiae... have i got news for you coffeetable probably does, so 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
tef posted:btw this is the most yospos thing ever ugh. math-like programming and unchecked exceptions are the worst things
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Stringent posted:coffeetable probably does, so
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
PHP is proof that there is no god it is proof that technical merit is completely and utterly irrelevant and that all attempts to build a better world are futile, that the world will never be a good place, but rather it will forever be the worst place that people are still willing to tolerate. (the same proof can be seen with more dramatic human cost in politics, ofc)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:ugh. math-like programming and unchecked exceptions are the worst things when he said that everybody hates checked exceptions, i thought of you 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
math majors make the worst programmers so you can safely ignore them when they say checked exceptions are bad and math-like languages are good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:math majors make the worst programmers so you can safely ignore them when they say checked exceptions are bad and math-like languages are good. checked exceptions own having the compiler bitch when you dont cleanup is great also not need to use exceptions in 99.9% of cases is even better!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
"Why the hell would anyone want to know about exceptions?? I will just deal with them at runtime" - math majors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:"Why the hell would anyone want to know about exceptions?? I will just deal with them at runtime" - math majors. lmao having the compiler be smart enough to remove all but a few async exceptions is p great it will then complain at compile time if u forget to check for NPEs or the like (the cant even exist)))
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:lmao having the compiler be smart enough to remove all but a few async exceptions is p great async is planger bullshit and the user can just loving wait
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:25
|
|