"A gentle introduction to Symta" - Nikita Sadkov

"Advanced Symta" - Nikita Sadkov

Where are these books?!

Nikita, write and publish!

>>27

but one of the biggest wins of haskell for me is that algorithms written by different people compose well.

People also go well together when they are all dressed in nazi uniforms, you fucking fascist.

Those that are put together in a strict-by-default environment are often strict enough that they just don't compose without "time leaks", so you wind up reimplementing the whole thing over again, entangling the two implementations by hand, because its easier than dealing with the laziness annotations, defeating the whole purpose of the exercise to me.

Just because you fuck it up doesn't mean everyone will. Just because I fuck your sister doesn't mean everyone does. Fucking faggot.

You "could" build a culture in a strict language around structures with lazy spines and get things that compose, but I can't point to a single language out there that can do this that does.

I bet you're the kid that had the legos in the sandbox and was all like wow I have lots of blocks. If only I had a block that was the thing I want. You weren't the kid that thought of what he wanted and built it out of the legos in front of him. No imagination. Gimme this. Gimme that. I need it. I neeed it! Because I can't fucking build it myself! Wahhh! Wahhhhhhhh! Waaaaaaahhhhhh!!!! Bob the Builder abandoned you because you were a talentless bitch and a failure at building.

The 'quick and easy path' in that setting leads to mutation and folks tying the knot with mutation and nulls, not lazy values and bottoms.

Unless you optimize the laziness out entirely THEY'RE THE SAME FUCKING THING YOU DIPSHIT. WAAAHHH!!!! I can't use mutations unless the monstrous runtime I'm using is doing it for meeee!! Wahhhhh!