Yeah, I believe the official instance of EU and ACM are both quite small. It is a great way to verify people’s identity just from their ID.
Yeah, I believe the official instance of EU and ACM are both quite small. It is a great way to verify people’s identity just from their ID.
In Maybe monadic, its monadic bind will automatically resolves any failed computation, and don’t need explicit checking.
for example, the code in Haskell looks something like the following:
fib: Int -> Int -> Maybe Int
fib max_depth idx =
do
guard (0 <= max_depth)
n1 <- fib (max_depth - 1) (idx - 1)
n2 <- fib (max_depth - 1) (idx - 2)
return (n1 + n2)
Haskell type class system automatically figures out this is a maybe monad, and check for error accordingly.
Notice, unlike the C code the author provide, this haskell code will exit immediately when n1
failed and never compute n2
, similar to the behavior of the exception code. Thus I believe his point about performance is at least unjustified, if not wrong.
Another interesting fact about this code is that there is nothing that is built into the compiler/interpretor (except the do
expression, which is just a minor syntactical sugar). For this code, the compiler designers don’t need to design special semantics for raise and catch. Everything here, guard
, return
, and the Maybe
monad (which is in charge of propagating errors) is defined by the user, using normal functions, no metaprogramming involved.
Wouldn’t effect systems still be considered exceptions, but handled differently?
Yes, unlike monad, the error in algebraic effect is propagated by the compiler/interpretor, instead of user defined. But unlike implicit effect, explicit effect (algebraic effect, throwable, etc.) makes it clear how the code can go wrong.
Although explicit error through monad or algebraic effect is more clear in general, there are special cases where explicit effect is undesirable. One such example is effect pollution: low-level effects that are unlikely to cause impure behaviors are unnecessarily propagated through the call stack. This problem can make the code more verbose and difficult to handle.
The more I read about these kind of article the more I am amazed that our digital future is at hand in utterly incompetent people.
This person clearly have no understanding of monadic error (AKA Maybe/option monad or slightly more advanced Either monad), which is the first monad we teach at a class targeting second year undergrad.
The performance comparison is just plain factual error. The functional error code will continue to compute n2
when computation of n1
failed; the same do not happen in the exception version. If you compare codes with completely different traces, of course they will have different performance…
A properly implemented monadic error will return as soon as compute for n1
failed, and never execute the rest of the code. This is the default and idiomatic behavior in Haskell, OCaml, F#, and rust. This performance problem doesn’t even happen in LINQ-style handling like in C# and Kotlin (maybe also Typescript?).
The point of monadic error is that its control flow is local, whereas exception is non-local. Specifically, the exception can be handled and occur anywhere in the code base, with no indication on the type level. So programmers will be constantly worrying about whether the exception in a function call is properly handled.
Even worse, when you try to catch a certain error, there is always the risk to accidentally catch similar exceptions in a library call or someone else’s code. Writing good code with try-catch requires a lot of principle and style guides. But unlike monads, these principle and rules cannot be enforced by the type system, adding extra burden to programmers.
In fact, we have known for a long time that non-local control flows (goto, break, contiune, exception, long jump) are the breeding ground for spaghetti code. As an evidence, many non-local control flows (goto, long jump) are baned in most languages.
That being said, there are certainly cases, with proper documentation, that exception style is easy to write and understand. But I think they are very specific scenarios, which have to be justified on a case-by-case basis.
Many people don’t know usb-c cable is universal, and apple only advertises chargeing iphone with macbook and ipad charger.
I imagine most of these people use an iPhone, and they will certainly waste their money on an “Apple cable”.
Plus many of these tech-illiterate people are likely on a lighting iPhone with a barrel jack Windows, they won’t even know they need a new charging cable until they realize their old lighting cables don’t work.
Probably runs at usb2 speed and charges at 5w.
The cat is playing poker with two mice in the last panel.
I cannot find anything related to “the promised 10 years of lightening”. Do you min providing a source?
That didn’t pass as far as I am aware.
I was talking about usb-c, and I don’t care about RCS, but it is still better in everyway than SMS.
Forced by EU! Thanks again, EU.
I want to say “live to see another day”, but on retrospect, that is indeed, quite boring.
as far as I know, C# don’t have proper ergonomic monadic bind as in F# (computation expression), Haskell (do expression), and Ocaml (let*), but I could be wrong.
Honestly, it is much more code to use loop with non-local control like break, continue etc. (variable initialization, append, variable mutation in loops…) than just calling a collect function (which I assume just means to_list). In the above example, in most programming language I know, you don’t even need to collect the result into a list.
Not to mention, large loops with non-local control is a breeding ground for spegatti code. Because you no longer have a consistent exit point to the loop, thus making the semantics hard o reason about.
In many languages, there are type class / trait / interfaces (whatever you want to call them) that allows lazy structures to share the same API as strict ones.
I truly wish the guard recieve the sentence they deserve, instead of a immunity and a paied break, like the police.
Shortly after publishing this article in her blog, she also published a gh repo collecting incidents of misogynism https://github.com/iyzhang/misogyny/ It would be great if people can give it a read or contribute incidents.
Glad to see this article is eventually published by the ACM.
so you are the degenerate that follow world news on lemmynsfw. I was wondering why are there so many news on the all feeds of my porn account.
Apologists for Chinese/Russian government.
deleted by creator
I think he mentioned that ad-blocking is priacy, but I don’t recall he said piracy is theft or piracy is inheritly unethical.
He mentioned many time that he pirates stuff, except he would pay for them first.
I don’t think google will allow them to move to chromium. They need gecko to avoid anti-trust law suites.