Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

God writes Haskell

hookrace.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 128 posts

Re: God writes Haskell

#71

Post by ogogmad »

misja111 wrote: post #25

I would like to add that just like in our universe, in Haskell entropy only ever increases and never goes down. I.E., add more functionality to your program and the complexity will go up. This is true for all programming languages of course, but in my limited experience larger Haskell programs seem to become exponentially more complex.

I have a theory that Haskell's main applications are in teaching and academic research - both concerning theoretical computer science. It's not a practical engineering language.

Re: God writes Haskell

#72

Post by koolala »

whateveracct wrote: post #60
misja111 wrote: post #25

I would like to add that just like in our universe, in Haskell entropy only ever increases and never goes down. I.E., add more functionality to your program and the complexity will go up. This is true for all programming languages of course, but in my limited experience larger Haskell programs seem to become exponentially more complex.

The key is to not write large Haskell programs. Write many Haskell libraries and compose them. This scales infinitely and is an excellent way to build software. But it's also hard to do and takes good & deliberate technical leadership if you want to get 50+ engineers doing it.

Monads!

Re: God writes Haskell

#75

Post by koolala »

jexp wrote: post #48
galfarragem wrote: post #33

I would bet that He writes Lisp. Ultimately everything is the same. Particles. Above it: particles made of particles.

God wrote in Lisp, Bob Kanefsky performed by Julia Ecklar. My favorite song. https://www.prometheus-music.com/audio/eternalflame.mp3 Refrain (full lyrics): http://www.songworm.com/lyrics/songworm-parody/EternalFlame.... For God wrote in Lisp code When he filled the leaves with green. The fractal flowers and recursive roots: The most lovely hack I’ve seen. And when I ponder snowflakes, never finding two the same, I kn…

JSON is a 4 letter name too! Could replace LISP with it.

Re: God writes Haskell

#76

Post by koolala »

candiodari wrote: post #8

Let's face facts here: God just fell asleep on the keyboard, and by a staggering coincidence, or perhaps a weird shape of the head, the first 4 letters he typed were P, E, R, L. He's still sleeping.

% [List, Dictionaries!]

Re: God writes Haskell

#78

Post by mbfg »

beltsazar wrote: post #42
say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #36

This explains why he allows genocide. /s Oh come on, this title begs for sarcastic responses.

If no one could do bad things in the world, then there would be no free will. No free will, no genuine love. You'd love God and other people because you were programmed to do so.

how did we determine there is free will in the universe or haskell?

Re: God writes Haskell

#79

Post by jgwil2 »

koolala wrote: post #75
jexp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God wrote in Lisp, Bob Kanefsky performed by Julia Ecklar. My favorite song. https://www.prometheus-music.com/audio/eternalflame.mp3 Refrain (full lyrics): http://www.songworm.com/lyrics/songworm-parody/EternalFlame.... For God wrote in Lisp code When he filled the leaves with green. The fractal flowers and recursive roots: The most lovely hack I’ve seen. And when I ponder snowflakes, never finding two the same, I kn…

JSON is a 4 letter name too! Could replace LISP with it.

An article that shows almost exactly that: https://stopa.io/post/265

Re: God writes Haskell

#80

Post by louthy »

kaba0 wrote: post #69
whateveracct wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key is to not write large Haskell programs. Write many Haskell libraries and compose them. This scales infinitely and is an excellent way to build software. But it's also hard to do and takes good & deliberate technical leadership if you want to get 50+ engineers doing it.

If you can reason about f and g that doesn’t mean that you can tell anything useful about f o g, so no, this is a factually incorrect statement. Sure, if we have a separate unit of functionality, write a function for that. But that’s no silver bullet - complexity is unbounded.

That isn’t true. If f and g are pure then the composition holds the same guarantees as the component parts
Post reply on HN