On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Alex Stangl a...@stangl.us wrote:
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 10:17:26AM -0500, aditya siram wrote:
From my vantage point they are (in no particular order) : Reader, Writer,
State, IO, ST, STM, Parsec (have I missed any?) and of course the
transformer versions. I am
Good, we need more functional programmers actually solving real
problems. But please put your skills to work in an industry other
than investment banking.
There are lots of companies outside of investment-banking using
functional programming.
Bluespec, Galois, TypLab, are all serious Haskell
Hello,
I am no expert in web server tuning, but I will share my thoughts about your
approach and expectations nevertheless.
On 08.08.2010, at 21:07, Alexander Kotelnikov wrote:
So I continue to issue thousands of HTTP GET requests to a local apache
an got some ThreadScope pictures and
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 01:00:16AM -0400, Mark Lentczner wrote:
The Haddock team has spent the last few months revamping the look of the
generated output. We're pretty close to done, but we'd like to get the
community's input before we put it in the main release.
Please take a look, and
Hi Lars,
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Lars Viklund z...@acc.umu.se wrote:
The survey seems to be inactive, by the way.
It's because Mark already posted the results. :)
Cheers,
Johan
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On 06/08/10 03:15, Jeff Zaroyko wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Johan Tibelljohan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Dino Morellid...@ui3.info wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Mark Lentczner wrote:
One thing I haven't seen anyone else comment on is the width of the
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
The great thing about the Haddock redesign is that the content has been
separated from the style. If opinions about the style are sufficiently
divided we can provide a style switcher on the docs we ship with GHC, and
aditya siram wrote:
Thanks all for you suggestions!
Upon further reflection I realized that my audience is more pragmatic than
theoretical. Instead of emphasizing how monads are constructed and the monad
laws I think I want to dive right into the most common and useful monads.
From my vantage
bri...@aracnet.com writes:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:09:40 +0800
Andy Stewart lazycat.mana...@gmail.com wrote:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com writes:
On 9 August 2010 09:44, Andy Stewart lazycat.mana...@gmail.com
wrote:
Which ghc version?
The Glorious Glasgow Haskell
Hi all,
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
I've put together a quick, 9-question State of Haskell, 2010 survey:
http://blog.johantibell.com/2010/08/state-of-haskell-2010-survey.html
The survey will hopefully give us some insight into how people
Hi.
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:44:00 +0200
JG == Jean-Marie Gaillourdet j...@gaillourdet.net wrote:
JG
JG I am no expert in web server tuning, but I will share my thoughts
JG about your approach and expectations nevertheless.
I would better think about ghc than about web server. I believe, that
OK, I declare myself officially unable to make a decision on this one:
there's just too many good options ;). I beseech the community to aid me in
my plight, by taking a survey on the names available[1].
Michael
[1]
Hello Petr,
the mersenne-random package is quite low-level and uses explicit
destructive update, so it can only be used with the IO monad. Same with
other fast generators like mwc-random. This is incompatible with the
RandomGen and Random classes, which can only model a pure interface.
About
@Michael: Have you seen the JSMacro package on hackage? I think it might be
a better fit as it adds some nice syntactic goodies to JS in addition to
variable interpolation.
Cheers.
~Liam
On 9 August 2010 22:59, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
OK, I declare myself officially unable
You need to close the parent's socket in the child fork, as well as
the parent - if it's inherited by the child, it's held open there,
even if the parent closes it.
Thanks! That did the trick.
I did so by adding
close_fds = True
to the CreateProcess record. However the documentation of
jerzy.karczmarc...@info.unicaen.fr wrote:
Alberto G. Corona writes:
(...) Desugarize the do notation, after that, desugarize the =
and operators down to the function call notation and suddenly
everithing lost its magic because it becomes clear that a haskell
monad is a sugarization of
On 8 Aug 2010, at 20:23, Alexander Kotelnikov wrote:
This + 1 in (n1 + n2 + 1) what is it doing there?
import Control.Parallel
nfib :: Int - Int
nfib n | n = 1 = 1
| otherwise = par n1 (pseq n2 (n1 + n2 + 1))
where n1 = nfib (n-1)
n2 = nfib
Quoth Jonathan Geddes geddes.jonat...@gmail.com,
You need to close the parent's socket in the child fork, as well as
the parent - if it's inherited by the child, it's held open there,
even if the parent closes it.
Thanks! That did the trick.
I did so by adding
close_fds = True
to the
On 27/07/2010 01:54, John Meacham wrote:
For each type I can statically generate an optimal layout based on its
structure. For instance, maybe benefits from two of these optimizations,
first of all, nullary constructors (Nothing) need never appear in the
heap, so they are given values that pack
GHC seems to have a few bottlenecks once you start to really stress-test
its I/O performance. Using a newer HEAD ghc actually gives less awful
performance:
sc...@cslin209 ~/test $ ghc --make -O2 -threaded -rtsopts get.hs
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( get.hs, get.o )
Linking get ...
Only a guess, but I predict that it will work for your purposes,
since you're not concerned about what happens to std_in et al.
I actually am concerned about what happens to std_in. The parent
process serializes a bit of state and passes it to the child via the
child's std_in. There's probably
Dear all,
Although the Haskell 2010 Language Report has only been published
recently, it will soon be time for the Committee to make decisions on
the next version, Haskell 2011.
I am aiming for the committee to make decisions around the end of Sept
or beginning of October 2010.
Can I
Yes I think that showing the Maybe and List implementation of monads is
essential. They're practical and in a lot of ways they represent two
completely different types of computation demonstrating the flexibility of
the Monad abstraction. Thanks for that suggestion.
-deech
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at
Yes. I find that out of 10 people I train, only about 2 pick it up
and run with it. I'm starting to believe you are either wired for
functional programming, or you're not.
Couldn't agree more. This is the usual conclusion I arrive at when I
find myself wondering why so many very intelligent
Good, we need more functional programmers actually solving real
problems. But please put your skills to work in an industry other
than investment banking.
I've received a lot mail on this comment; mostly positive. Here's one
from someone who wishes to remain anonymous:
First of all I would
Out of 10 people trained only 2 should do programming anyway. :)
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Tom Hawkins tomahawk...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Eil,
Have you had any trouble training people to use Haskell?
Yes. I find that out of 10 people I train, only about 2 pick it up
and run with it. I'm
But do you think there would be more Haskell jobs offered (in absolute
terms), if no investment firms offered jobs?
Is there some kind of quota of job offers that gets used up?
There seems to be more job applicants that job offers at the moment,
so I'm not sure what the problem is.
On Mon, Aug
sacha:
Hi.
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:44:00 +0200
JG == Jean-Marie Gaillourdet j...@gaillourdet.net wrote:
JG
JG I am no expert in web server tuning, but I will share my thoughts
JG about your approach and expectations nevertheless.
I would better think about ghc than about web server. I
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Lennart Augustsson
lenn...@augustsson.net wrote:
But do you think there would be more Haskell jobs offered (in absolute
terms), if no investment firms offered jobs?
Is there some kind of quota of job offers that gets used up?
No and no. Again, I think it's
Yes. I find that out of 10 people I train, only about 2 pick it up
and run with it. I'm starting to believe you are either wired for
functional programming, or you're not.
I disagree that only certain brains are wired for FP. I think your
experience can be explained by people's inability
I think the default locale of the terminal app on snow leopard is utf-8.
I can also report that I have no problem compiling the tar version of
jhc 0.7.4 on snow leopard 10.6.4 using ghc 6.12.1, need to install the
editline package though.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 5:33 AM, John Meacham
Haskell CURRY?
Curried potatoes?
The lambda calculus?
Historical actuality?
SI!
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Jeff Rubard jeffrub...@gmail.com wrote:
Haskell CURRY?
Curried potatoes?
The lambda calculus?
Historical actuality?
SI!
lol wat
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Hi all,
I was experimenting with monad transformers and realized that the stacking
order of the monads can remain unknown until it is used. Take for example
the following code:
import mtl Control.Monad.State
import mtl Control.Monad.Writer
import mtl Control.Monad.Identity
test :: (MonadWriter
From: Alexey Khudyakov alexey.sklad...@gmail.com
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:29:59 +0200
Stefan Holdermans ste...@vectorfabrics.com wrote:
No I think here we breaking out from _arbitrary_ monad. If monadic
function works for every monad then it must work for identity monad
too. Here is
Excerpts from aditya siram's message of Mon Aug 09 15:05:14 -0400 2010:
Until test is called in 'main' we don't know the order of monads. In fact
even the base monad is not know. All we know is that it uses the State and
Writer monad. In each call to 'test' in main we can determine the stacking
Actually, while I haven't even used monad transformers before (just
read about them a lot), I was thinking that something like this might
be the way to solve the lift . lift . lift . lift . foo problem on the
one hand, and by wrapping the 'contents' (e.g. the environment of a
reader monad) of
For monads like StateT, WriterT, ReaderT, the order doesn't matter (except
perhaps for some pesky performance details). However, for monad transformers
like ErrorT or ListT, the order _does_ matter.
The code you have there is perfectly fine, sometimes the added generality
can be quite handy
Excerpts from Gábor Lehel's message of Mon Aug 09 15:39:49 -0400 2010:
Actually, while I haven't even used monad transformers before (just
read about them a lot), I was thinking that something like this might
be the way to solve the lift . lift . lift . lift . foo problem on the
one hand, and
On Monday 09 August 2010 21:19:01, John Lato wrote:
I don't find purify2 particularly helpful because I almost never want
to break out of any arbitrary monad; I want to be able to break out of
a specific monad without knowing which monad it is, that is:
purify3 :: Monad m = m a - a
purify3
Hi there,
I've written some very simple Emacs modules for making using Haskell
in Emacs a little bit nicer:
http://github.com/chrisdone/haskell-mode-exts
You can download the project with git, or pick and choose individual files:
2010/8/9 Edward Z. Yang ezy...@mit.edu:
Excerpts from Gábor Lehel's message of Mon Aug 09 15:39:49 -0400 2010:
Actually, while I haven't even used monad transformers before (just
read about them a lot), I was thinking that something like this might
be the way to solve the lift . lift . lift .
I've never used this myself, but the package mtlx seems to offer one
possible solution to this problem by tagging the monad transformers with
index types:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/mtlx
Cheers,
Greg
On 08/09/10 12:39, Gábor Lehel wrote:
Actually, while I haven't even used monad
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Job Vranish job.vran...@gmail.com wrote:
For monads like StateT, WriterT, ReaderT, the order doesn't matter (except
perhaps for some pesky performance details). However, for monad transformers
like ErrorT or ListT, the order _does_ matter.
Is it really correct
Hello,
I'm trying some haskell scripting. I'm writing a script to print some
information
from a zip archive. The zip-archive library does look nice but the
performance of zip-archive/lazy bytestring
doesn't seem to scale.
Executing :
eRelativePath $ head $ zEntries archive
on an archive of
On 10 August 2010 09:29, Pieter Laeremans pie...@laeremans.org wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying some haskell scripting. I'm writing a script to print some
information
from a zip archive. The zip-archive library does look nice but the
performance of zip-archive/lazy bytestring
doesn't seem to
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:19 PM, John Lato jwl...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't find purify2 particularly helpful because I almost never want
to break out of any arbitrary monad; I want to be able to break out of
a specific monad without knowing which monad it is, that is:
purify3 :: Monad m = m a
Excerpts from Luke Palmer's message of Tue Aug 10 01:04:04 -0400 2010:
Except, of course, you want the signature
evalCont :: Cont r a - a
Which is not possible. But I am not sure where all this discussion is
coming from, Maybe and (r -) cannot be broken out of. Isn't that
example
Greetings Haskellers!
directory-tree is a module providing a directory-tree-like datatype
along with Foldable and Traversable instances, along with a simple,
high-level IO interface. You can see the package along with some
examples here (apologies if the haddock docs haven't been generated
yet) :
49 matches
Mail list logo
