About once a week, I think "I really ought to verify that Haskell is trivial." But because it almost certainly is, it's worth 15 mins max.
-
-
Mostly I was making fun of my own arrogance. The underlying question is: are there ideas here I need to know?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @CoBuddha
The two that I’m not sure of, from having done programming language theory 30 years ago, are partial evaluation and “category th
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @CoBuddha
Partial evaluation is conceptually trivial (if you understand lazy evaluation), but I’m not sure how I would use it in practice.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @CoBuddha
Maybe I’d find it really cool and useful if I had it. Obv can get the same effect with lambda in any sane language, but maybe >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @CoBuddha
> having a simple syntax makes it more readily available and then I’d use it often.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @CoBuddha
The other thing is “category theory” which seems in practice to be “monads,” which are “trivial” in some relevant sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @CoBuddha
What I was implicitly asking is: is there some “category theory” in Haskell that’s actually useful and interesting.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I got some replies that were helpful (and remarkably restrained considering how rude I was being).
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @CoBuddha
So far I’m not persuaded, but at least I know where to look now instead of googling at random!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.