239 karma · joined March 14, 2010
The most important innovation in the Hindley-Milner type system was parametric polymorphism, since that is the thing that enables you to build more powerful abstractions. Since the release of Java 1.5 and C# 2.0 that is now fully mainstream, but it took more than 25 years.
But it shouldn't matter, the implicit constraint on a VARCHAR(n) does not affect indexing.
>That is not really a strong argument.
It's worse than that. The linked paper is about implementing minikanren as a monad transformer, which is a lot trickier than just porting it over, regardless of language. It's probably a lot easier in Haskell than in Scheme though.
Furthermore, if pure FP is useless, then monad transformers are useless too. But then the argument becomes "this useless thing is really tricky to implement in Haskell, therefore Haskell is useless". The only reason you would want Oleg's minikanren to be easy to implement is if you actually want pure FP. So the argument kind of negates itself.
Doesn't this apply to syntax as well?
GE is 4th, not 44th. It seems to be a typo.
An overwhelming majority of all the banks that failed during the crisis had zero OTC derivatives on their books, but plenty of average vanilla home mortgage loans.
Internal documents from the banks that did deal in more sophisticated financial products show that they had a good understanding of how these products exposed them to risks in the home mortgage market, they just didn't think that housing prices would fall that much.
Despite all this, people like to blame OTC derivatives for the crisis rather than overconfidence in the housing market.
Why is this?
Nope, you can burn unsorted garbage. The reason for sorting is so you can recycle materials instead of putting it in a incinerator.
Derivatives of GPL-licensed code is either: 1. GPL-licensed 2. Illegal
If it's not explicitly 1 by the license on the derived work, it becomes 2. It is not automatically "forced" into category 1.
I still use it because I've become so accustomed to its UI but I switch to Safari on some sites to avoid spinning up the fan.
To me that sounds like an argument against BI. You're basically saying that we can have the social safety benefits of BI for only 10% of the cost by using means-tested programs . Since that's what the Nordic countries are doing, and according to you it works really well.
This idea does not stand up to any scrutiny at all. The cost of administering a welfare bureaucracy is minuscule compared to the cost of a BI program.
> Don't think you'd have to "tax the rich like crazy". Would returning to the tax rates of the 1990s be "crazy"? Would closing corporate loopholes be "crazy"? Would investigating why trillions of dollars in tax havens have somehow escaped oversight be "crazy"?
None of those suggestions would come anywhere near the amount of money needed for a BI program.