Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sullyj3's commentslogin

Functions can be polymorphic in their effectfulness, so the coloring problem isn't. Functions only become incompatible where you've made them incompatible on purpose - the whole point of annotating functions' effectfulness is to statically know you're not accidentally invoking particular effects where you promised you wouldn't.


Can you elaborate or point to resources?


I did a quick search and found this:

https://aclanthology.org/C08-5001.pdf

Also good was section 4 of

https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10237543

Both work with semirings, which are a structure with two monoids.

I found these papers fairly readable on a quick skim, but I have a background in closely related stuff. They might not be so readable if you're not used to the style of presentation.


That only shows that word prediction isn't necessary, not that it's insufficient


makes a lot of sense.


It could be a tmux alternative if the session persistence is the only feature of tmux you care about, and you don't like the rest of it.


Learning a new language is basically trivial relative to the effort of bootstrapping everything yourself to compensate for a lacking ecosystem, or the effort of banging your head against the fundamental unsuitability of a tool for a job.

Anyone who's learned one or two languages should be able to pick up the basics of any of the standard ones pretty much instantaneously.


Exactly


Which is which and why?


mod.rs came first and that made creating modules verbose as hell. Not only that but imagine having many mod.rs files open, you wouldn’t know what module you are in by just looking at the filename.


imagine having many lib.rs open?


Whenever you're asking for an explanation this deep in the ontology stack, you need to think about what kind of explanation would be satisfying to you, and whether you can reasonably expect intuitive answers in domains that lie far outside of your everyday experience. Human brains aren't built to grasp this stuff intuitively.

At a certain point, the reason we like some particular wacky physical model is always going to be "it has the best combination of explanatory power and simplicity"


A thing can be explained with its constituent parts or explained by a parallel analogy. If you don't understand the constituent parts or the analogy or there are neither of these. You won't understand it.


Why not just make a separate leaderboard for autonomous AI solvers which are an interesting problem in their own right?


> I feel like right-to-left requires you to think to the end of a line before you start typing anything at all

Maybe this will make people tend to shorter lines, counterbalancing the natural tendency towards incomprehensibility of array and stack languages


The fact that you embed the entire program in the URL is a hilarious demonstration of its brevity


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: