Viewing profile — freyrs3

You have to appreciate the audacity of some of the portfolio companies in Fund I for getting away hilariously bad business models. They literally fleeced Chris Dixon into funding P…

Showing how Yang-Mills and SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) fall out would be a natural starting point for a proposed unification theory. This model doesn't even try explain the existing particle …

> Ain’t that cool? Oh it is! Now never use this.

If you want a description of the monad laws in Haskell terms you can Google and find like 80 expositions on the topic of various depths. If you want a mathematical exposition. "Cat…

Their usage in Haskell/OCaml etc is precisely faithful to their category theoretic definitions as can be in a general purpose language. This debate about naming monads is pretty ti…

> The way this problem manifests in Haskell is in how incredibly clever it makes you feel to get something done in it. Haskell is different enough from most languages that everythi…

It has two different parsings: avoid (success at all costs) (avoid success) at all costs The first is more apt description of Haskell's design, the later is more of a joke.

It's not a hot technology ( read as overhyped ), but if you're in the analytics space and not using Python/PyData tooling then definitely check that out. It's certainly as mature, …

The academic type theory mentioned in this post is not really terribly important to implementing type systems for general purpose languages. There's this growing divide between the…

Strictly speaking Hindley-Milner is the type system that itself admits tractable inference using the usual unification techniques via the Damas-Milner family of algorithms. Gradual…

Wadler's Law: https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Wadler%27s_Law In any language design, the total time spent discussing a feature in this list is proportional to two raised to the…

There were some interesting attempts trying to adapt LLVM's precise GC to Haskell's GC model and the difficulties with this approach: http://lhc-compiler.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-l…

This is extremely well done, thanks for taking the time to make a screencast.

The elephant in the room in these discussions is that the cost of bringing a function compiler to fruition is so high that too much of the discussion gets muddled in the semantics …

Might as well start worrying about an airborne mutation of HIV while we're at it. Wouldn't start heading for the bunker just yet.

I can't even begin to parse what you're trying to say or how it relates to my last comment.

Quite sure, in a dynamically typed language there is only a single static type inhabited by all values. If the compiler is reasoning about classes of values at runtime then it does…

> When is a language untyped There's the formal definition of type and there's the colloquial definition of type. A type in the context of the article means a formal type, it is an…

Because you've defined "safety" to encompass several orthogonal concepts and as such is meaningless. If you look at each axis on it's own ( type safety, memory safety, exceptional …

Safety as you're using is not the concept that Haskeller's refer to when they talk about the language. "Type safety" is a very precise term that refers to several proofs about the …

The complaints in the article don't really generalize at all. It seems to just be a rant about why targeting the JVM from a functional language can yield non optimal code without c…

There is an ambient culture of code reuse at a level I don't see elsewhere, that's one of Haskell's strength's in my opinion. Though it does make certain packaging problems more di…

Wouldn't say that the community is gravitating toward Nix, it's kind of a false split since Cabal and Nix can only be used together and Nix can't replace cabal. Though Nix can be u…