really funny to see programming languages with patterns like the : (T : Type) ⦃ _ : T ⦄ → T and with x <- for(1, 10) and now i'm getting back into linguistics and reading semantics papers like ‘yeah donkey anaphora work because introducing quantified bindings takes the rest of the statement as a continuation’. get real.
Free Soft !!!
- any
imprisoned in the computer for being too beautiful. sideblog for smaller thoughts (on computers, math, weeb shit, and more). all original work here is released under CC0.
posts from @homotexas tagged #nought may endure but mutability
also:
i don't have any particular gripe with haskell but everything is a compiler or a database and i feel like pure functional style is good for the former and not so much the latter. and of course any actual compiler is also part database
i'm actually a mutability extremist. local mutable state is the root of all good in programming. all affine monads can be modelled as mutable state plus affine continuations and they often should be. unique references give the same ‘threading of actions’ but with sensible convention that it just always happens in reading order, and you don't need MonadState, MonadError, MonadIO, etc to handle wrapping because the effects sit next to each other, not around each other