protomikron

> I don't understand how a bug in GHC has blown up more than any bug in any recent GCC or clang - probably because the bug reporter decided that hyperbole was going to be their tool of choice instead of behaving like an adult.

It didn't blow up more or less than bugs in other language implementations. When there are serious bugs in GCC, LLVM the JVM, etc. it always goes to HN's front page.

It often breaks the builtin Browser-Search.

Django, because there are no missing parts. Everything is documented and comes with examples, that work and most importantly it anticipates additional steps and often guides you in the right direction (if you want to dive deeper) or clearly states what's out of Django's scope.

Having autocompletion and and a convenient syntax to access record fields is standard and expected by most developers.

I think if Haskell wants to convince developers to jump ship (and they don't, according to the infamous marketing slogan) there must be a bigger benefit, I don't think better record Syntax cuts it.

Then why is actual "organic chem" level of complexity (running bio-chemical simulations in Python, C, C++, Fortran, Matlab, Julia, Rust, ...) simulated in different programming languages?

My question is partly serious, as I would imagine a superior programming language to find applications across multiple domains (and Haskell is mostly just used in the Parser/Compiler and web service industry).

What is the history of "undefined behavior" [in C compilers and the standard] in general? I suppose originally it was supposed to guide compiler engineers, but we all know that backfired, as many compilers try to exploit undefined behavior to optimize code, but that can be problematic in security sensitive code (e.g. if uninitialized memory is optimized away) - there have been discussions between security engineers, kernel developers and GCC hackers about how to implement/interpret the standard.

Would it be possible to have a standard, where undefined behavior is just a compile error? What would we lose - apart from legacy compatibility?

Interesting is also find. It took me some time to accept that the directory must come first.

E.g.

  find /path/to/dir -type f

works, while

  find -type f /path/to/dir

does not.

Was it a classic scheduling problem (e.g. distributing resources)?

> [...] as an exercise to the reader, go to archive.org and type in the URL of your favorite porn website.

And then, what? You get the content and you consider that problematic?

Why "used to", though? There current open positions seem to look for classic C, C++ and Python: https://jobs.lever.co/kittyhawk.aero?department=Heaviside&te...

To be fair, dnf replaced yum for quite some time now. However yum is still recognized as a command (but symlinks to dnf).

Thank you, that sounds like a really informed answer.

How does this compare to Baserow (I think also an airtable and sheets alternative)?

So ... what features do you often miss/would you like to see implemented?

Thanks for the links. There's also this Reddit discussion [0] from 2 years ago (it mentions Carp btw.) and an explanation about how Carp manages memory [1].

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/d5d13i/is_it_possi...

[1] https://github.com/carp-lang/Carp/blob/master/docs/Memory.md

Can somebody please explain or give me some links how FP is supposed to work without a GC? For example Rust has different types of function pointers (Fn, FnMut, FnOnce), to guarantee the possibility of lifetime analysis (so it is arguable to consider it a functional programming language). On the other hand the most common FP languages (OCaml, Haskell) all come with a GC.

Or am I wrong in assuming this is a functional language?

Why did it not catch on, though?

Python was already well known as a "scripting" and server-side web development language in the early 2000s, but it's commonly mentioned that it really exploded in the 2010s, where it was the implementation language for several scientific packages, most notably the machine learning eco system.

It seems that the language really found a local optimum that adheres to many different people across disciplines.

There's some more or less serious discussion, that instead of using π = 3.14... (Pi) in formulas, we should adopt τ = 6.28... (Tau). Proponents claim, that it would simplify many formulas that include the term "2π".

For example the circumference on the unit circle is 2π and would become just τ if we adopted it as a constant.

Laziness may indeed not exist, but non-strict evaluation for sure does.

So ... maybe they don't want to go for LIDAR (in their cars), because they wanted to build a humanoid robot anyway and felt that a LIDAR on a mobile platform's head is infeasible (?) - so they skipped the sensor fusion problem, and want to solve the harder problem first.

... and maybe go back to LIDAR later? Just guess work.

Thanks, that's an interesting video.

Agreed. Similar to why Plan9 did not replace Unix, because Unix is good enough. It does not mean we can't do better, but the leap forward was (is) not big enough.

At least that's my understanding.

That sounds like a neat idea.

I too implemented GOL at some point (when I had a look at SDL) and for fun changed the (boolean) game field to integers that I mapped to grayscale (and later RGB). So instead of killing/giving birth to cells you just decrease/increase their integer value. The result looks like a spreading fungus (with the classic horizontal/vertical/diagonal patterns) which can be very chaotic when numbers start to overflow and underflow.

It's a really fun and engaging way to play with 2d graphics and simulation.

Actually I think the transition to Python3 went pretty well. Most people are on 3 now, and Python's ecosystem is thriving.

Do you have an example of the final (aerial) imagery result?

Dhall is not turing-complete. That's the whole point.

Afaik IPython is Jupyter's predecessor and superseded by Jupyter (which provides the notebook abstraction for different languages).

IPython was in the beginning Python specific, though its heritage lives on in the new name (the 'py').

> [...] it's amusing to think that a significant part of a "high IQ" club is games :)

That is exactly what I expected.

> [...] In my personal view, joining the club because of (relatively) high IQ was no different than joining, say, a chess club

Because in a certain sense, they attract the same people? Both seem a little bit competitive: One defines their members by IQ and the other by ELO.

Yes, but it would be nice to read some "official" numbers backed by HN's monitoring (although I'm on HN quite/too often, I would not notice every downtime).

Curious, what is the uptime of HN - is there some data about that?

My guess is around 99.9% ... but maybe that's too optimistic?