Wow! LSP backend for Haskell in Emacs actually works somewhat better than Intero, though I've only been using it for a few hours. And it doesn't have weird bugs on NixOS, because it's authors don't have a raging hate boner for this distro. I'm genuinely surprised.

Apparently, there are people who use Idea to write Haskell code. I'm really wondering who these people are and why they hate themselves so much.

The only time when that stuff is really useful is for writing code in Java. But then you're fucked anyway, and there's very little that can help.

There's a weird herd of Jetbrains products evangelists. Whenever there's a discussion about programming tools, someone always tries to convince everyone that they aren't real programmers unless they use "real IDEs". But whenever I try using Idea or Eclipse or anything similar for that matter, my experience always ends up being full of misery and disappointment. Perhaps I'm not a real programmer. Either this, or JetBrains tools just suck as for almost everything.

On the other hand, not every Comonad can be an Extractable. Tuples can't be, for one. But I'm still curious why something like this isn't a part of the comonads package.

Does this look like a slashed and lawless version of Comonad to you? Or something like what Pointed is to Applicative. I've no idea why this is a thing, when one could just use comonads with all added benefits.

Can anyone explain to me what the point of using monads in languages like Ruby or Python is?

I won't be surprised if C++25 will support native ADTs, currying, and ML-like syntax. But no modules tho. No, modules are too hard.

Our database works three times as fast outside the docker container. How come?

>To me, Go feels like the programming language equivalent of insisting that everyone communicate just by grunting because it's less complex to teach people just grunting than it is to teach them more effective forms of communication.

I really like this quote.

Crap! Intero still doesn't support GHC 8.8, does it?

If you want an example of good software, look no further than what OpenBSD guys make. Their stuff can be kick-started with minimal configuration, usually works out of the box just fine, and is handsomely documented.

To clarify a bit. I have this long standing impression that good software is usually (not always) easy to configure. If the setup and configuration part is overly complex, then the software is either a very specialized piece or just plain shit.

Some of our dudes decided to use Clickhouse for logging stuff. Which is nice, but two things stand out. One is that there's no Haskell library for it. This is fixable. The other is that it uses XML for configuration. With a rather weird schema. The last part leaves me wondering why I should bother.

@pureevil I'm waiting for a compiler saying "google the error code to find more information".

This is where Rust sucks sweaty donkey balls. All I needed was to add another crate as a dependency, but it doesn't say anywhere what crate that is, neither anything does point to it. The issue[1] on github is more than a year old meanwhile. And the one in the compiler message is four years old.


What is the point of C and C++ standards if nobody fully implements them?

Quite funny how centralized software repos turned into a disaster for software packaging in the linux world. More and more projects use docker nowadays. Not because docker is good, but because everything else sucks.

Show more
Functional Café is an instance for people interested in functional programming and languages.