oessessnex

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Just buy a new SSD to install Linux on. If you decide to switch back just plug the old one in.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I quite enjoy Nix flakes for this. Only certain languages have good support though (C, Rust, Haskell, OCaml, ...).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (5 children)

It's easier to write that much if you are just making stuff up...

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I don't have 2 mil, how do I get out of this? File for bankruptcy?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Stand a little out of my sun.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

The implementations mostly don't matter. The only thing that you need to get right are the interfaces.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Well, most people installing Arch for the first time have no idea what a typical Linux install does under the hood. That makes it a worthwhile learning experience. The same commands you use during the setup you can later use to fix or change things. It basically forces you to become a somewhat proficient Linux user.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

On a phone with spyware installed that wouldn't do anything. There are probably ways to get rid of it, but how can you be sure?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nope. Monads enable you to redefine how statements work.

Let's say you have a program and use an Error[T] data type which can either be Ok {Value: T} or Error:

var a = new Ok {Value = 1};
var b = foo();
return new Ok {Value = (a + b)};

Each statement has the following form:

var a = expr;
rest

You first evaluate the "expr" part and bind/store the result in variable a, and evaluate the "rest" of the program.

You could represent the same thing using an anonymous function you evaluate right away:

(a => rest)(expr);

In a normal statement you just pass the result of "expr" to the function directly. The monad allows you to redefine that part.

You instead write:

bind((a => rest), expr);

Here "bind" redefines how the result of expr is passed to the anonymous function.

If you implement bind as:

B bind(Func[A, B] f, A result_expr) {
   return f(result_expr);
}

Then you get normal statements.

If you implement bind as:

Error[B] bind(Func[A, Error[B]] f, Error[A] result_expr) {
   switch (result_expr) {
       case Ok { Value: var a}:
           return f(a);
       case Error:
           return Error;
   }
}

You get statements with error handling.

So in an above example if the result of foo() is Error, the result of the statement is Error and the rest of the program is not evaluated. Otherwise, if the result of foo() is Ok {Value = 3}, you pass 3 to the rest of the program and you get a final result Ok {Value = 4}.

So the whole idea is that you hide the if Error part by redefining how the statements are interpreted.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You can probably replace it with ImageMagick.

view more: next ›