Alexander Vershilov

@qnikst

Haskell developer, PhD in physics

Moscow, Russia
Vrijeme pridruživanja: kolovoz 2015.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @qnikst

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @qnikst

  1. prije 7 sati

    А раз нечем похвастаться самому, можно хоть похвастаться успехами детя

    Poništi
  2. 29. sij

    Semi-correct way to write exceptions handlers. (Please do not try what we do on this show at home.)

    Poništi
  3. 26. sij

    This year was very nice: nice talks, good organization. Had a great time there, thanks to everyone involved.

    Poništi
  4. 25. sij

    The main take away from this talk is that “I’m not counted” :/

    Poništi
  5. 25. sij

    ФП трек: Julia Не ФП трек: scala Кажется, что я что-то не понимаю в ФП

    Poništi
  6. 20. sij

    Maybe fancy Haskell is needed at least to keep the mind in the active state; once you do a boring stuff for a long time you can catch highway effect and fall "asleep" during walking hours. As a result make a terrible mistakes, that you'd never do if your mind was active...

    Poništi
  7. 19. sij

    So if put all above in the table, where good is all maintability properties and simple/advanced is language feature set: | Good | Bad | Simple | Advanced 1A | + | - | +/- | +/- 2A | - | + | +/- | +/- 1B |+/-|+/-| + | - 2B |+/-|+/-| - | +

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 19. sij

    The problem appears when people start tossing definitions around, e.g. use 1A with 2B (even they are not exclusive then) or tell that 1B => 1A. People do change the axioms they use and definitions even in the middle of the discussion and that is quite disappointing. 6/6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 19. sij

    I don’t have any problem with either (1A+2A) or (1B+2B). With A: good code necessary boring Haskell (by def) boring Haskell not necessary uses simple features With B: Boring Haskell doesn’t mean good code Good code is not necessary boring or fancy 5/6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 19. sij

    Another approach is to define “Simple Haskell” without details (1B): A Haskell subset that uses only easy to grasp features of the language. In this case fancy Haskell (the opposite) (2B): Way to code that uses advanced Haskell features 4/6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 19. sij

    With this definition “fancy Haskell” (The opposite) becomes (2A): Way to code that leads to unnecessary complicated, unmaintainable or untestable code. 3/6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 19. sij

    One way to define “simple Haskell” (1A): Simple Haskell is an approach to programming on Haskell that leads to maintainable, testable and extensible problems that a newcomer can easily join. 2/6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. 19. sij

    Let me add a bit more fuel into “simple/boring Haskell“ trend. It seems that one of the problem for (non-)acceptance and debates is vague definition. 1/6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 19. sij

    Чем заняться в воскресенье первокласснику, если не хочется на улицу? Итого сириус.курсы : factorio - 1 : 0. (На принятие решения влияние не оказывалось)

    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    16. sij

    Еще рабочие места для хаскеллистов! Набегайте: и RT конечно же

    Poništi
  16. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    16. sij

    Why is it ‘Data.Functor’, but ‘Control.Monad‘? Linear types help us to understand in “A tale of two functors, or how I stopped worrying and love Data and Control”

    Poništi
  17. 15. sij

    Just curious what helps you better understanding of the theorem, solution, idea? (Please check academia in a case if you work there or think that it’s heavily influenced you)

    Poništi
  18. 14. sij

    I wanted to play with Haskell, but my friend told that there is very strict boring checker, that is hard to deal with. Is it true or did he want to fool me?

    Poništi
  19. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    14. sij

    The amount of human genetic data doubles every 7 months. How do scientists keep track? and 's data team worked on a solution: a search engine called the "Table of Everything". Check out his article!

    Poništi
  20. 14. sij

    *Just curious*, how many additional contributors GHC had after switching away from the Phabricator. I remember a lot of people who told that Phab was the reason they do not contribute?

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·