On 9/4/08, John Dorsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm no master either, but I'd argue that if we promise new programmers
that they don't need to care about strictness, we thereby ensure that
default laziness is treacherous.
A year or two ago, ISTR that *most* of the newbie-generated traffic
Tim,
A year or two ago, ISTR that *most* of the newbie-generated traffic in
the cafe was about atrocious performance of naive programs due to
strict/lazy concerns. I think it was scaring people away.
I think it's debatable what the various causality relationships might be here.
Jake Mcarthur wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 9:52 PM, Tim Chevalier wrote:
I'm no master, but I've never encountered a situation where strictness
annotations would be useful as documentation, nor can I imagine one.
I'm no master either, but how about these simple examples?
data
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Tim Chevalier wrote:
The master programmer does not add strictness annotations, for she has
not yet run the profiler.
The compiler will certainly be able to infer the strictness itself
As far as I am aware this statement is
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 08:19 -0700, Tim Chevalier wrote:
On 9/3/08, wren ng thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want the datatype to be strict in state and rec, then you should add
strictness annotations to those fields directly:
data Query state rec = Query !state !rec
The
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This attitude is wrong. Many potentially significant performance
problems can easily be spotted and solved during construction without
affecting the readability of the code, problems that would be much
harder to diagnose
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 20:11 -0700, Tim Chevalier wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This attitude is wrong. Many potentially significant performance
problems can easily be spotted and solved during construction without
affecting the readability
On 9/3/08, wren ng thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want the datatype to be strict in state and rec, then you should add
strictness annotations to those fields directly:
data Query state rec = Query !state !rec
The novice programmer scatters strictness annotations to and fro like
On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Tim Chevalier wrote:
The master programmer does not add strictness annotations, for she has
not yet run the profiler.
My guess would be that a master usually adds strictness annotations as
documentation rather than as optimizations.
- Jake McArthur
On 9/4/08, Jake Mcarthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My guess would be that a master usually adds strictness annotations as
documentation rather than as optimizations.
I'm no master, but I've never encountered a situation where strictness
annotations would be useful as documentation, nor can I
On Sep 4, 2008, at 9:52 PM, Tim Chevalier wrote:
I'm no master, but I've never encountered a situation where strictness
annotations would be useful as documentation, nor can I imagine one.
I'm no master either, but how about these simple examples?
data Stream a = Cons !a (Stream
On Sep 4, 2008, at 11:23 PM, Jake Mcarthur wrote:
To quote a blog article[1] I wrote in June,
And of course I would forget to link the article. My bad.
[1] http://geekrant.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/misconceptions/
- Jake McArthur
___
Haskell-Cafe
On 9/4/08, Jake Mcarthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm no master either, but how about these simple examples?
data Stream a = Cons !a (Stream a)
data Vector3 a = Vector3 !a !a !a
The compiler will certainly be able to infer the strictness itself in
most uses, so obviously
On Sep 4, 2008, at 11:40 PM, Tim Chevalier wrote:
But why not write your types like:
data Stream a = Cons a Stream a
data Vector3 a = Vector3 a a a
in a hypothetical call-by-value language where the annotation
denotes a lazily evaluated data structure? Does it matter? If it
Tim Chevalier wrote:
I'm no master, but I've never encountered a situation where strictness
annotations would be useful as documentation, nor can I imagine one.
That's because optimization *is* the only reason why programmers
should care about strictness information. IMO, arguing that
On 9/4/08, Jake Mcarthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two lazy algorithms tend to compose well and result in a lazy
algorithm. A lazy algorithm can compose with a strict algorithm in two
different ways. One way is for the lazy algorithm to control the
strict algorithm, in which case the
On Sep 5, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Tim Chevalier wrote:
On 9/4/08, Jake Mcarthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two lazy algorithms tend to compose well and result in a lazy
algorithm. A lazy algorithm can compose with a strict algorithm in
two
different ways. One way is for the lazy algorithm to
Ramin wrote:
...no matter how many tutorials I read, I find the only
kind of monad I can write is the monad that I copied
and pasted from the tutorial...
I am writing a mini-database...
The query itself is stateful...
The query may also make updates to the records.
I also
thought of trying
Ramin wrote:
Hello, I'm new here, but in the short time I have known Haskell, I can
already say it's my favorite computer language.
Except for monads, and no matter how many tutorials I read, I find the
only kind of monad I can write is the monad that I copied and pasted
from the tutorial,
Hello, I'm new here, but in the short time I have known Haskell, I can
already say it's my favorite computer language.
Except for monads, and no matter how many tutorials I read, I find the
only kind of monad I can write is the monad that I copied and pasted
from the tutorial, i.e. I still
On Sep 2, 2008, at 8:34 AM, Ramin wrote:
instance Monad Query where
return (initState, someRecord) = Query (initState, someRecord)
{- code for (=) -}
GHC gives an error, Expected kind `* - *', but `Scanlist_ctrl' has
kind `* - * - *' .
I believe you understand the problem with
Am Dienstag, 2. September 2008 15:34 schrieb Ramin:
Hello, I'm new here, but in the short time I have known Haskell, I can
already say it's my favorite computer language.
Except for monads, and no matter how many tutorials I read, I find the
only kind of monad I can write is the monad that I
22 matches
Mail list logo
