AZ
куда на самом деле тоже сравнима
в общем когда плюсовикам выгодно: "у нас есть темплейты, зирокост вычисления, констэкспр"
когда не выгодно "ой, ну это время компиляции, надо собираться быстро"
Size: a a a
2020 August 03
AZ
как всегда в плюсцах только идеальный баланс
AZ
as all things should be
AZ
Шаг влево - медленнее, шаг вправо - долго собирается
DS
@f0land
Тут от царя пришел вариант решения твоей проблемы. То что ты хочешь или нет?
https://godbolt.org/z/Mqado1
Тут от царя пришел вариант решения твоей проблемы. То что ты хочешь или нет?
https://godbolt.org/z/Mqado1
b
There is a strange... kind of poetry with Haskell. It is like math on wheels, math applied to procedures, math with... time.
Its appeal to me is like the appeal of math to me, not like real analysis math but abstract algebra math. The beauty, the purity of mathematics of younger days that once became lost after encountering the sad complexities of the world. Understanding every little aspect and being able to prove every part is now a luxury, and interfacing without real understanding is the more practical approach in the turbulent waters of poorly connected technological and social systems.
But still there is hope and there are dreams. We like to drench ourselves in dream qualia sometimes, and Haskell and pure math are that medium. The abstractions of it, the consistency of it, the purity of it... When Haskell is called a pure language, it almost goes beyond the static definition of functions being pure, and describes the general feeling that occurs when writing Haskell. You feel pure. You feel like you are taking these small parts and creating greater parts in an elegant buildup of abstractions, traversing one level higher and one level lower at your whim.
Lisp... maybe it’s the parentheses, maybe it’s something else... it never really caught onto me like Haskell did. Haskell feels pure and dream-like and perhaps unsuited to the world where (if you really get down to it) abstractions and types are just useful ‘human’ inventions and unfit for every usage. The world is for getting down and dirty, and mathematics, or at least the pure side of it, really isn’t. The representative mathematics of Haskell is Category Theory, and it is just as far from the level of “real” as it can be. More abstract than abstract algebra, if you will.
Abstraction itself is an intellectual operation that is also rooted in emotional detachment. Perhaps Haskell represents that kind of ideal in a modern world where practicality pays before purity.
Its appeal to me is like the appeal of math to me, not like real analysis math but abstract algebra math. The beauty, the purity of mathematics of younger days that once became lost after encountering the sad complexities of the world. Understanding every little aspect and being able to prove every part is now a luxury, and interfacing without real understanding is the more practical approach in the turbulent waters of poorly connected technological and social systems.
But still there is hope and there are dreams. We like to drench ourselves in dream qualia sometimes, and Haskell and pure math are that medium. The abstractions of it, the consistency of it, the purity of it... When Haskell is called a pure language, it almost goes beyond the static definition of functions being pure, and describes the general feeling that occurs when writing Haskell. You feel pure. You feel like you are taking these small parts and creating greater parts in an elegant buildup of abstractions, traversing one level higher and one level lower at your whim.
Lisp... maybe it’s the parentheses, maybe it’s something else... it never really caught onto me like Haskell did. Haskell feels pure and dream-like and perhaps unsuited to the world where (if you really get down to it) abstractions and types are just useful ‘human’ inventions and unfit for every usage. The world is for getting down and dirty, and mathematics, or at least the pure side of it, really isn’t. The representative mathematics of Haskell is Category Theory, and it is just as far from the level of “real” as it can be. More abstract than abstract algebra, if you will.
Abstraction itself is an intellectual operation that is also rooted in emotional detachment. Perhaps Haskell represents that kind of ideal in a modern world where practicality pays before purity.
AZ
хз у меня CUDA весит около гига, а растс 200 МБ
я кстати нашел там флаги отключения лишних фич, которые мне до часа компиляцию сократили, но эт все равно такое
V
There is a strange... kind of poetry with Haskell. It is like math on wheels, math applied to procedures, math with... time.
Its appeal to me is like the appeal of math to me, not like real analysis math but abstract algebra math. The beauty, the purity of mathematics of younger days that once became lost after encountering the sad complexities of the world. Understanding every little aspect and being able to prove every part is now a luxury, and interfacing without real understanding is the more practical approach in the turbulent waters of poorly connected technological and social systems.
But still there is hope and there are dreams. We like to drench ourselves in dream qualia sometimes, and Haskell and pure math are that medium. The abstractions of it, the consistency of it, the purity of it... When Haskell is called a pure language, it almost goes beyond the static definition of functions being pure, and describes the general feeling that occurs when writing Haskell. You feel pure. You feel like you are taking these small parts and creating greater parts in an elegant buildup of abstractions, traversing one level higher and one level lower at your whim.
Lisp... maybe it’s the parentheses, maybe it’s something else... it never really caught onto me like Haskell did. Haskell feels pure and dream-like and perhaps unsuited to the world where (if you really get down to it) abstractions and types are just useful ‘human’ inventions and unfit for every usage. The world is for getting down and dirty, and mathematics, or at least the pure side of it, really isn’t. The representative mathematics of Haskell is Category Theory, and it is just as far from the level of “real” as it can be. More abstract than abstract algebra, if you will.
Abstraction itself is an intellectual operation that is also rooted in emotional detachment. Perhaps Haskell represents that kind of ideal in a modern world where practicality pays before purity.
Its appeal to me is like the appeal of math to me, not like real analysis math but abstract algebra math. The beauty, the purity of mathematics of younger days that once became lost after encountering the sad complexities of the world. Understanding every little aspect and being able to prove every part is now a luxury, and interfacing without real understanding is the more practical approach in the turbulent waters of poorly connected technological and social systems.
But still there is hope and there are dreams. We like to drench ourselves in dream qualia sometimes, and Haskell and pure math are that medium. The abstractions of it, the consistency of it, the purity of it... When Haskell is called a pure language, it almost goes beyond the static definition of functions being pure, and describes the general feeling that occurs when writing Haskell. You feel pure. You feel like you are taking these small parts and creating greater parts in an elegant buildup of abstractions, traversing one level higher and one level lower at your whim.
Lisp... maybe it’s the parentheses, maybe it’s something else... it never really caught onto me like Haskell did. Haskell feels pure and dream-like and perhaps unsuited to the world where (if you really get down to it) abstractions and types are just useful ‘human’ inventions and unfit for every usage. The world is for getting down and dirty, and mathematics, or at least the pure side of it, really isn’t. The representative mathematics of Haskell is Category Theory, and it is just as far from the level of “real” as it can be. More abstract than abstract algebra, if you will.
Abstraction itself is an intellectual operation that is also rooted in emotional detachment. Perhaps Haskell represents that kind of ideal in a modern world where practicality pays before purity.
ебать полотно
V
TL;DR есть?
b
For me too there is a feeling of poetry... but for me it's more the nails-on-blackboard grating of awful poetry, and the ice-pick-to-ears screeching of abrading subway wheels. 🙂
Lisps merely inspire me towards elegant craftsmanship. But Haskell tempts me to dream of more. It's my fault, but ouch.
Dreams of math made manifest. Of materializing a lattice of theories, each with types and operators and laws, simply extensible and composable - a push-out lattice. Dreams of programming that's more math than plumbing. And maybe someday, some future Haskell Next will permit that flight, that dance. But that's not Haskell.
Someone I know, will pull up the deep math of a problem domain, model it in Coq, and mentally compile it to Haskell, extending GHC internals as needed to better serve as compiler target. For a wetware compiler that gets only very limited support from current tooling. I can't do that. Not even close. I need a language and tooling that's on the same page as me, to serve as an extended self. And for this, that's not Haskell.
Many years back, someone in a conversation suggested a core skill of a professional C++ programmer, was cataloging the things which seem like good ideas, and might even serve well in some other OO language, but which tended to go badly in that era's C++. Along with many baroque workaround to salvage others.
Fewer years back, I'd a conversation about using Haskell in education. We talked of alternate preludes to remove historical clutter, and extensions to remove historical limitations. And turned up a fun divergence - he thought of learning Haskell as fairly easy, and I thought of it as ghastly hard. For his default context was programming in the small - vocabulary, functional mindset and such. And mine was... you the start at the other end, with the dream, the no-extraneous-complexity pure essence of what is needed... and now you have to learn the zoo of baroque work arounds, and crippling limitations, by which Haskell fails the dream.
Lisps merely inspire me towards elegant craftsmanship. But Haskell tempts me to dream of more. It's my fault, but ouch.
Dreams of math made manifest. Of materializing a lattice of theories, each with types and operators and laws, simply extensible and composable - a push-out lattice. Dreams of programming that's more math than plumbing. And maybe someday, some future Haskell Next will permit that flight, that dance. But that's not Haskell.
Someone I know, will pull up the deep math of a problem domain, model it in Coq, and mentally compile it to Haskell, extending GHC internals as needed to better serve as compiler target. For a wetware compiler that gets only very limited support from current tooling. I can't do that. Not even close. I need a language and tooling that's on the same page as me, to serve as an extended self. And for this, that's not Haskell.
Many years back, someone in a conversation suggested a core skill of a professional C++ programmer, was cataloging the things which seem like good ideas, and might even serve well in some other OO language, but which tended to go badly in that era's C++. Along with many baroque workaround to salvage others.
Fewer years back, I'd a conversation about using Haskell in education. We talked of alternate preludes to remove historical clutter, and extensions to remove historical limitations. And turned up a fun divergence - he thought of learning Haskell as fairly easy, and I thought of it as ghastly hard. For his default context was programming in the small - vocabulary, functional mindset and such. And mine was... you the start at the other end, with the dream, the no-extraneous-complexity pure essence of what is needed... and now you have to learn the zoo of baroque work arounds, and crippling limitations, by which Haskell fails the dream.
V
ок
b
чуваки с хакерньюса пишут про хаскель и лисп
b
это читается как письма елизаветы второй
b
только речь не о сексе, а о компьютерных программах
AZ
@f0land
Тут от царя пришел вариант решения твоей проблемы. То что ты хочешь или нет?
https://godbolt.org/z/Mqado1
Тут от царя пришел вариант решения твоей проблемы. То что ты хочешь или нет?
https://godbolt.org/z/Mqado1
лол, какой-то полуидрис
AZ
с триллионом believe_me и толкьо компайлтайм правда
b
Haskell = poetry (confirmed)
DS
лол, какой-то полуидрис
Но смотрится и правдо няшно в данном случае.
DS
с триллионом believe_me и толкьо компайлтайм правда
Так вроде и вне компайлтайма сработает