LukeHoersten

They're not actual bitcoins. The Bitcoin is a wallet embedded inside of a physical coin. You could take a picture of a USB key and call it a Bitcoin using that logic.

It's funny how media outlets often use pictures of gold coins with the Bitcoin logo on it to illustrate Bitcoin. If it doesn't have a physical representation they make one ;-)

Haskell has two Ls. Are you actually using the languages mentioned?

This is actually fairly old. I used it a few years ago and it had some kind of memory leak or something in it's JS and would eventually stop working. Perhaps that's fixed now but I switched back to native clients as a result.

The author states the "extreme" case of OOP is "everything is an object" and the extreme case of FP is "purity."

The problem with this analogy is that everything being an object doesn't by you much. But in Haskell, the type system helps you keep track of what's pure and what's not. So having a type system that keeps track of purity buys you something: lots of pure and extremely easy to reason about code. Non-deterministic (unpure) code is the same difficulty to reason about in any language. Isolating it from pure code just reduces the amount of code which is difficult to reason about.

In case anyone's interested, there's also a Real World Haskell book freely available to read online: http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/

I'd be interested to see how they compare.

I've transferred or am transferring about 10 of my domains from places like GoDaddy and 1and1 to NameCheap. I love NameCheap. I typically go for whatever registrar is the cheapest regardless of how crappy the interface is and NameCheap has successfully become the cheapest registrar for a number of my TLDs. The benefit is that their service and web interface are great! I highly recommend.

Resistance is futile.

Watch Bernanke's comments here live at 2:30 EDT: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Fed-Chair-Briefs-on-Economic-Ou...

It's broken. Instead of sending web login requests to the app "login requests" area, they're still sending SMS messages. The SMS messages used to include a 6-character token to login but it's been replaced by the 256-character signature. This can't be used to login with and nothing shows up in the app "login request" area. It looks like the old SMS system and the new 2-factor auth system are conflicting with each other.

Stripe needs a logo in the Authy app. Also someone needs to force NameCheap to get 2-factor auth.

Great commercial. I feel like my mom would even understand 2-factor auth now.

I've been using Authy for all my accounts that support 2-factor auth for a while now and it's awesome! Google's app is crap and Authy's app is sexy and fast. It really kinda annoys me now when websites don't support 2-factor auth. It's easy enough for them with the Authy API and adds so much for me. More and more I see major websites having their hashed password databases stolen (just search HN). The situation's only getting worse.

This looks like it hasn't been worked on in a while.

I've been unable to put the ePub version of the book down on my iPad/iPhone. I was excited to have syntax highlighting and pagination. Excellent book so far. Highly recommend buying it.

hive.co

cdx.co

dirigible.co

This might be a nice way to get around the JS-FFI burdening things like Fay and GHCJS which compile Haskell to JS.

Their website design looks like a hardware store site design.

Non-uniform memory access http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Uniform_Memory_Access

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745704/ 1999. Amazing.

In my opinion the module system (http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/modules.html) is a bit weak. For example: "It is not possible, however, to hide instance declarations in the Prelude. For example, one cannot define a new instance for Show Char."

Instances can't be explicitly imported either.

Another thing I don't like is if you have two different functions with the same signature but different implementations meant to give swappable functionality, there's no way of specifying that explicitly. As a user of a library, you just have to realize the functions can be swapped out with modules. For example:

http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/bytestring/0.10....

http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/bytestring/0.10....

It's really not that bad but I do like how other languages allow the programmer to make this explicit.

Monad transformers are just monads wrapping other monads. I actually like it and think it's a really clean way to organize your state, IO, etc. For example, you could have a Reader wrapping a Writer wrapping a State wrapping IO. The reader is your configs, the writer is for error logging, the state is for some application map, and the IO is for doing networking or something. That's an extreme case but it's nice to lay it out in that way.

#haskell on Freenode. Great group of smart hand helpful people.

Agreed. That sucks =(

I know this is a bit off topic but part of the same hardware presentation: does the new Macbook Air have retina display? I couldn't tell from the keynote.

Nice site design. Is that a freely available Bootstrap theme?

It may be limiting to call the API object "Recipient" then. It precludes a bidirectional ACH object. Maybe "Bank Account" or something would have been more future proof.

I own the domain http://hive.co . I always intended to build an app around it but never got around to it. I'd be willing to sell the domain. Not necessarily a side project, more a potential side project =) Contact info in the whois.

Seems reasonable. Worth the discussion at least. Thanks for responding to my comments.

Parallelism and concurrency are certainly different. Don't think I'm saying otherwise. Our disagreement is that I'm saying parallelism is a subset/type of concurrency and you are saying parallel execution can somehow not be concurrent execution.

I still stand by my assertion that you misunderstood the quote from the Haskell wiki:

"Rule of thumb: use Pure Parallelism if you can, Concurrency otherwise."

as something that supports your claim that parallelism is not concurrency.

From Wikipedia:

"In computer science, concurrency is a property of systems in which several computations are executing simultaneously, and potentially interacting with each other. The computations may be executing on multiple cores in the same chip, preemptively time-shared threads on the same processor, or executed on physically separated processors."

I find it hard to believe that parallel execution of multiple threads aren't "computations executing simultaneously" and therefor aren't concurrent.

Do you have any more detail about why you (or Rob Pike) think that parallel execution is not also always concurrent execution?