| enlarge your Haskell |
[Jan. 24th, 2008|03:57 pm] |
Меня очень напрягает дурная работа и дурной язык программирования C++.
За это платят, но беспросвет угнетающий.
Я очень хочу найти работу Haskell программиста. Только мне вначале
нужно подтянуться, побольше на нем покодить... Трудно время
находить - рутина высасывает энергию, - но нужно, иначе ж как.
* Ask Reddit: How do I get a job hacking Haskell all day? |
|
|
| feeling smuggy smug smug smug |
[Nov. 14th, 2007|06:22 pm] |
Господин назначил меня любимой женой!
:)
(Subject отсюда.) |
|
|
| хозяйке на заметку |
[Oct. 29th, 2007|07:07 pm] |
Чтобы смахнуть паутину с web-журнала, оставлю ссылку на охоту за азевайзом.
Другое... другоэ... асталъное... Пусть будет прочерк (_). |
|
|
| import lists: explicit vs. implicit |
[Oct. 24th, 2007|11:07 am] |
Since the subject relates to holy wars, this post should stay in
personal blog. ;)
There is a rather active thread in xmonad mailing list,
concerning Haskell coding style guidelines. And a question about what kind
of import lists is preferable - implicit or explicit - has been raised in
particular.
I choose not to use explicit import lists. They are tedious to
write, they lead to code which looks dirty, and they are headache to
maintain.
And I don't agree with the argument that it is hard to find a
particular definition without explicit lists. It is not. When a code
is loaded into ghci, I can use the :info command to find
a definition. I can use etags (ctags?) to jump
between symbols in my favorite editor. And when I am stuck (or lazy),
I use hoogle.
It is so simple, it should stay that way. Let compiler do its job.
 |
|
|
| find kiev -type company -print0 | xargs -0 grep -i haskell |
[Sep. 14th, 2007|09:36 am] |
| [ | Tags | | | haskell, job | ] |
| [ | Current Music |
| | Radiohead - Airbag | ] |
Панове,
а знаете ли вы в Киеве конторы, где на Haskell софт пишут? |
|
|
| yet another message (not in the bottle this time) |
[Jul. 27th, 2007|07:36 pm] |
A friend of mine asked for some Haskell starter links for vacation reading. ( Here they go... ) |
|
|
| () |
[Jun. 18th, 2007|11:53 am] |
Довод в пользу QuickCheck — randomized controlled trial.
<- norvig.com
"Humans are very good at detecting patterns, but rather poor at detecting randomness."
-Peter Norvig, "Mistakes in Experimental Design and Interpretation"
<- science.reddit.com |
|
|
| |
[Apr. 16th, 2007|10:43 pm] |
"The only way you can show sequence is not necessary is by writing an OS, a compiler, a web server etc in Haskell - all of which have been done. Unfortunately I only had a small piece of paper so couldn't write any of those."
-Neil Mitchell (Describing Haskell to an Ada programmer) |
|
|
| tail recursion in Haskell |
[Apr. 4th, 2007|11:38 am] |
Thus, the most common Haskell idiom about tail recursion is to not think
about it (and hence not use it). Instead, return values as early as
possible (in some cases (&&) can return a definite answer by looking at
the first argument only). Note that this is very different from strict
functional languages.
-haskell-cafe |
|
|
| YAHT |
[Feb. 19th, 2007|11:46 am] |
There is the "Gentle introduction to Haskell" in which the word "gentle"
is a cruel and sadistic joke. The best of the online tutorials appears to be
"Yet Another Haskell Tutorial"...
— [source]
Га-га-га-га-га! |
|
|
| Liskell — a Lisp-like syntax frontend for Haskell |
[Feb. 6th, 2007|01:26 pm] |
Есть два топовых языка программирования — Common Lisp и Haskell. И вот, один дядечка их объединил.
В интересное время живем! |
|
|
| two (Eric's) posts about Haskell |
[Jan. 29th, 2007|03:30 pm] |
|
|
|
| Does Haskell need macros? |
[Jan. 10th, 2007|10:12 am] |
Andrew Cooke's comment on the subject:
One reason haskell "needs" macros is that it's an interesting area of design space. Macros / staged evaluation in a lazy, typed system sounds like an intersting problem. This is the "fly to the moon" argument — there may not be a simple practical case, but who knows what we might learn on the way? |
|
|