[dead]
God writes Haskell
91–100 of 128 posts
Re: God writes Haskell
#92I 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…
hahaha this is incredible
> now some folks on the internet put their faith in C++
Thanks for sharing!
Re: God writes Haskell
#93God forbid H, ask hell
Re: God writes Haskell
#94With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I should wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the Haskell world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly cre…
I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.
Re: God writes Haskell
#95Haven’t we actually established that God DOES in fact play dice, that Niels Bohr was right, and that Einstein was wrong?
Re: God writes Haskell
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you can reason about f and g that doesn’t mean that you can tell anything useful about f o g I'm confused. If you can reason about f and g, there is nothing more to know about f o g -- provided f and g are pure functions. The whole thing is about making sure side-effects are properly pushed at the boundaries so that you can keep working with pure functions. Haskell just provides more help (or more constraints) to…
f :: Integer -> Boolean g f n = if (f n) then (g f (n+1)) else (is_it_reachable) Will it ever terminate (or insert any other interesting property that you wish) with f = collatz? I know this is the atomic bomb case, but you can actually quite easily increase the complexity in realistic programs by just a few compositions, it doesn’t take much.
Who said anything about termination? The original point was about composition. The guarantees of the component parts are the same as the composition. It's neither clear that f or g will terminate, and it's the same for f . g
If the halting problem is really your biggest concern when developing software then you're lucky!
Re: God writes Haskell
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I have evidence to the contrary. I have a job writing Haskell for a living doing boring, normal software. I also started a stream where I write libraries and games and build stuff in Haskell purely to disprove this theory. It's been going well: we've written a logical replication client library for Postgres, built an asteroids clone, etc. It is a very practical language.
Do you have a link to your stream?
Re: God writes Haskell
#98Interestingly i don't think we know that the speed of light remains constants, nor could we devise a test to determine it.
Currently the speed of light is constant by definition of the meter. If we were to find certain cases where the speed of light appears to be different from c, that would be interpreted as compression or expansion of spacetime. For example, universal expansion can be reinterpreted as light being faster in the past.
I'm wondering whether it could be reinterpreted as time having a variable rate.
Re: God writes Haskell
#99Haven’t we actually established that God DOES in fact play dice, that Niels Bohr was right, and that Einstein was wrong?
Not according to Everett and about half of practicing physicists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
Re: God writes Haskell
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have evidence to the contrary. I have a job writing Haskell for a living doing boring, normal software. I also started a stream where I write libraries and games and build stuff in Haskell purely to disprove this theory. It's been going well: we've written a logical replication client library for Postgres, built an asteroids clone, etc. It is a very practical language.
Do you have a link to your stream?
https://twitch.tv/agentultra
and Youtube where I archive my streams: