Ａｌｉｃｅ @Sasha@witches.town

@LottieVixen Sorry I was AFK but I see you got some pretty neat answers. Still lost or is what I tried to explain clearer with what you understood in the meantime ?

@LottieVixen It's a constructor from an sum data type. You want to have a type for let's say Strings and Int ? Haha, impossible in a strongly typed system where you know the type of each and every value. Let's say you had a container for this type, you stored an object and then some other function read one from this container. How should it use it ? As an Int or as a String ? See ? You can't. So instead, if you wanna consider «a String or an Int» (so the union of the sets corresponding to these two types), you have to build a new type StringOrInt, with to «constructors», kind of «tags» that wrap the value so you know what you have :

N of Int | S of String

@Baerd Ahhhhh j'ai été dans une situation un peu comme ça à un moment. M'enfin des tableurs excel… ma pauvre 😉

@Baerd Ah mais tu tafes et tu vas à la fac ?

@Baerd Qu'as-tu fait pour mériter une telle punition ? Courage ! 💚

@Baerd Pas pire. Premier jour ouvrable effectivement à la maison. Je me suis levée comme d'hab pour m'y mettre, juste sur mes projets persos. J'ai quelques courriels à envoyer et une rustine à faire à mon CV mais là je commence par travailler sur le projet de Koikoi dont on parlait icitte il y a quelque semaines. Toi ?

@bortzmeyer En empruntant au vocabulaire de la physique ? Régime permanent / transitoire il y a pas quelque chose à faire ?

printf("Hello, %s\n", "Fediverse");
exit 0;

Les charançons de la gloire #ironème

@bram @LottieVixen I hate everything that looks like a language-specific package manager and I think that people who created them played a cruel trick to the community so I don't know much about cabal nor stack.

About the abstractions in the language, yeah there are plenty of useful ones, and it's really nice to be writing a detail in a function, hating how it's gonna be complex due to the structure underneath before you realise that this very structure has exactly the good property that allows you to use a pretty operator to simplify everything and have the existing proofs do all the work for you.

@LottieVixen @bram It's very simple. It's a formal language (so just a toy to build «terms», with no particular «meaning» until you decide to assign one to them) that has expressions of three forms :

«variables» (give yourself a set of acceptable names for variables, just writing the name of a variable is a statement in itself)

«lambda abstractions» λx -> t
where x is chosen in your variables set and t must be a term itself and so recursively can be a variable, or a lambda, or an

«application» a term that you write «f t» where f and t are both terms (recursively again, f and t can be variables, lambdas or applications)

@LottieVixen @bram
My two cents but the most difficult to understand for me at first was actually how *simple* functional programming was. Seriously, it can be all very impressioning and first and it might sound like there's «something big» to get because you can hear people boasting about their superior intellect for digging functional programming but actually just stick to what you read, it's very powerful but based on very few simple premises. Do you know about lambda-calculus ?

@bram @LottieVixen It's a new way of thinking alright but I don't agree it's ridiculously complicated. Some concepts popular in haskell are, but they don't belong to haskell. You can have monads in C++. Promises in JS are just a particular monad.

Décalquage horaire #ironème

And I'm now officially unemployed ! I've got a lot of things to try, of personal projects to give a little bit more love to. I'm gonna try my best !! I'm also open to any suggestion of things to do.

@lunar plutôt «chouiner» (mais je suis originaire de la Champagne, donc je pourrais être un bruit de mesure).