LukeHoersten

I've been programming Haskell for quite a while now and find that many of these types of articles don't capture what I really value in the language. The author really captured what I love about Haskell excellently! It's super terse, (really) readable, and the barriers to entry people worry about are more in their minds than in reality. It's a great language and a great article!

I think Monotone was an alternative to BitKeeper and BitKeeper was the inspiration of Git and Mercurial. It even seems to suggest that in the link you posted.

For your WM you probably want to use a precompiled binary form your distro. What you're trying is equivalent of trying to get the whole gcc stack and deps to build a c-based WM. Haskell isn't a dynamic language and doesn't require anything Haskell-specific to be installed on the target system to run a binary.

If you really do want to compile your window manager from source, newer versions of cabal, the Haskell package manager, have something called sandboxes which basically remedy the problems you're talking about. I don't recommend compiling from source unless you know what you're doing though and if you're not using sandboxes, you probably don't.

I implemented multihash in Haskell: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/multihash

Apple announces they're making cars. Tesla pokes back with a joke about platinum watches. Nice.

This is the coolest thing I've ever seen. Nice work innovating, Amazon!

Did anyone see Elon updated his Twitter avatar to Dr Evil? Nice to see he still has a sense of humor =)

'"Do rich societies really need to get richer and richer indefinitely?" he asks.'

They do if they are going to pay off their mega-debt. The real fear is when the GDP drops below the yearly interest payments.

I feel the same when I go to nice European countries. "Wow everything is so nice" and then I remind myself that Germany is paying for it all. It's not sustainable. Look at some of the Scandinavian countries for nice mass public transit in a more sustainable setting.

I was thinking more stream fusion and rewrite rules etc. GHC is a lot more powerful in that sense than the other language compilers I mentioned. A lot of it in Haskell just boils down to bang patterns on data types. And where it does get messy as you suggest (yeah it does), you can nicely abstract it away behind a pure library interface. That way the mess is encapsulated.

SPJ, co-author of GHC, added this awesome comment:

""Look at the implementation of other functions in GHC.Prim;they're all defined as let x = x in x."

This begs the question of why this strange code exists at all. Answer: the sole reason is to give Haddock documentation for the primops a place to live. GHC.Prim is processed by Haddock more or less like any other module; but is effectively ignored by GHC itself.

Worth saying this.

Simon"

This is one of my favorite innards-of-Haskell articles. It's such an intuitive way to look at how a super high level language like Haskell gets down to machine primitives. So important for optimization too.

I've been in HFT for a while and what strikes me is the performance optimizations you make in C++, Java, and Haskell are actually so so similar. Get down to the primitives. Avoid boxing. Avoid memory allocation at run time. Makes me think any language can be performant if you know what you're doing.

Edward is epic in the Haskell world.

The first point is the only real argument IMHO and as others here have said, it's prediction, not reasons. Here's the crux of the first argument:

1. At the same number of daily transactions, fees must increase 250 folds. Or,

2. At the same fee level, transaction count must increase 250 folds. Or,

3. Price increases 250 folds to $65000/BTC. Or,

4. A combination of all 3

#4 seemed like the question answered itself. Instead the author doesn't acknowledge #4 at all:

"However, neither one of these scenarios is likely to occur. Scenario 1 represents a per transaction fee of $10. Scenario 2 represents 290 transactions per second and close to 25 million transactions per day"

The second part of the first argument is comparing Bitcoin costs to credit card costs. What the author is trying to say is that Fiat->XBT, buy something, then XBT->Fiat is more expensive than credit card fees of 3%. But on Coinbase, for example, that would be ~2% in transaction fees and that will only go down as XBT inventory is held and pooled so not every purchase transaction results in a fiat conversion. That's only being done now as a bootstrapping strategy (and it seems to be working).

I think the author has some good points here but didn't seriously address them, only thinly speculated on them. I'm giving it an up-vote to hopefully have some deeper discussion especially around the first argument of Bitcoin's inherent costs.

A quick side note: I'd like to see an analysis of electricity costs of mining vs. mining fees. Mining fees eventually need to surpass electricity costs for mining to be sustainable after inflation-payments are gone. The difference between costs and fees is the margin the miners will make. To me, that would really answer the first argument.

The trend seems to be "blog + feed" all-in-one platforms like Medium.com now. The old blogging model was the feed readers were separate from the platforms. I'm not sure if that's better or worse but that seems to be all that's left.

Same problem with Chrome for me. I ended up switching to Safari and have been really happy. In iOS, lots of apps only have an option to open pages in Safari and because I use cloud tab sharing etc, Safari on the desktop was really the only option for me. I started using Safari's built in style-stripping reader and reading list and have been really happy. Also, they have consistent swipe-for-history across iOS and OS X. Chrome did not and I'm still not use to it.

The site looks good but seems to have a ton of stability issues. The order book keeps blanking out and when I tried to deposit some money, it froze. I think I'll just stick with Circle for now.

My favorite quote:

"A fundamental reason for the preference is that functional programs are much more readily appreciated as mathematical objects than imperative ones, so that you can teach what rigorous reasoning about programs amounts to. The additional advantage of functional programming with “lazy evaluation” is that it provides an environment that discourages operational reasoning."

I think the existence of ghc-mod for incremental compiling and the interpreter repl really don't make compile times a big deal. It's a bigger issue in languages where you actually have to fully compile over and over as a part of your dev loop. This isn't something I ever do in Haskell because of said tools.

They replaced the Ford logo with a Bently logo on the car as well.

I love in the video how they replaced the Ford logo with a Bently logo. Nice touch Sandwich Video.

That's really clever. I had a good laugh at some of the results. Well done.

I can't sign up because all my amazon accounts are associated with other Amazon payment services? Is this an AWS thing?

XMonad is supposed to have OS X support but I've heard it only works for X11 apps. It'd be great to have XMonad for OS X fully supported because once you get a good config built up it's hard to beat. And if you know Haskell it's even better.

Awesome. Thanks a lot.

Anyone know of a Haskell or proper Haskell subset that can do something similar (hopefully batteries included)?

How is this different than Eventbrite?

My response to the email I received after this comment:

===

The last house keeper did a terrible job and had a bad attitude. The house keeper we had before that left your company. We have to keep getting new maids. Each new one is an investment in a trust relationship. Having to go through that repetitively is a failure of your service.

By the looks of the comments on HN, a place where people are usually very supportive of services like homejoy, it's clear you have a systemic issue. Not to mention it costs more than a local maid. Why would I pay more to get a worse service?

===

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 4:59 PM, The Homejoy Solutions Team (Homejoy) <support@homejoy.com> wrote:

- Everyone Deserves a Happy Home - The Homejoy Solutions Team (HOMEJOY) May 15 14:58

Hi Luke,

My name is Kimberly and I am one of the Solutions Specialists of our client services team here at Homejoy. I saw your comment on Hacker News this afternoon and I wanted to follow up with you. On behalf of the entire team, I would like to apologize that your experience with us has been less-than-great and I wanted to get in touch with you to see how I can possibly remedy your concerns.

When I looked into your account, I was not able to find any mention of dissatisfaction. So, I would like to see if you would be able to provide me with you concerns, so that I may do my best to fix them.

I look forward to hearing from you and please let me know if there is anything else I can do to remedy this experience for you.

Best,

Kimberly E. Solution Specialist

===

We've had terrible service with Homejoy. I gave it a few tries and I'm too nervous to try again. You can't see who will be cleaning your house until you're locked in. There's no quality control.

It seems it may be a problem that's better distributed (ex: word of mouth in your local area).

The first comment at the bottom of the article is questioning the taste of using paper filters. I've often wondered this myself.

In Chicago, Intelligentsia is the main coffee joint and they brew pour over. There's definitely a lack of visible oil on the surface of the coffee like I get at home with my french press.

What do you guys think? French press or pour over?

I love how this kind of craft can still earn a decent profit and even more, make it to the #1 spot on HN. Keeps me coming back. Thanks OP.