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

111–120 of 128 posts

Re: God writes Haskell

#111

Post by whateveracct »

cageface wrote: post #70
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.

How is this different from any other programming language?

Honestly, it isn't!

But Haskell technical leadership sometimes is either lacking/inexperienced or goes down the rabbit hole of overusing the compiler to prevent fuckups to the point where you're compiling way too much code and get into a coupling nightmare.

Re: God writes Haskell

#112

Post by fluoridation »

>The real world also doesn’t allow you random access, you are limited by the speed of light and have to go from one location to the next.

"Random access" doesn't mean that accessing an item always takes the same time regardless of the size of the collection, it means that, if the size of the collection doesn't change, access times are uniform independently of which particular item is accessed.

For example, one might conceive of a storage device shaped like a sphere the size of the solar system, where an item is read by shining a laser onto the surface of the sphere and measuring how the laser is scattered on its way back. Such a device would be random access, even though it's impossible to grow the collection, and even though a collection with twice the radius and four times the storage size would have four times the latency.

Re: God writes Haskell

#114

Post by riku_iki »

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 imagine there can be some language, which can automatically modify programs, e.g. you added some conditions, and compiled removed/disabled/moved to obsolete package all unnecessary branches which became unreachable or simplified logic.

Re: God writes Haskell

#117

Post by Quekid5 »

kaba0 wrote: post #105
louthy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

The Halting problem’s immediate consequence is Rice’s theorem, which is much more wide-reaching then termination.

... and entirely irrelevant when talking about function composition.

Re: God writes Haskell

#118

Post by Quekid5 »

charcircuit wrote: post #5

>He seems to enjoy writing Haskell This article gives no evidence of this. None of the concepts that the article lists out are Haskell exclusive. Thunks and linked list can be made in C too.

Have fun in the Turing Tarpit.

Re: God writes Haskell

#119

Post by rascul »

bckr wrote: post #94
woolion wrote: post #89

With 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.

> A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.

I'm reminded of a scene from Family Guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0z4vUU6bUo

Re: God writes Haskell

#120

Post by assimpleaspossi »

koolala wrote: post #87
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JSON isn't a programming language

That isn't true obviously. It's like saying lists aren't a programming language.

From the guy who created JSON:

>JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) is a lightweight data-interchange format.

From Wikipedia:

>JSON is an open standard file format and data interchange format

Now tell me how JSON is a programming language.

Post reply on HN