> For the same reason you might pay to use a typed language, when an untyped language is more general.
> For the same reason you might pay to use a typed language, when an untyped language is more general. Or why you might pay for encapsulation, when globals are more general. Or why you might pay for structured programming, when GOTOs are more general. Or why you might pay for a VM, when machine code is more general. And so on. Not all abstractions are created equal, and while all the other ones you mention do have some costs, they are dwarfed by the benefits; they're bargains. This one? I'd say it's overpriced junk (though it's pretty junk). The expressiveness it buys on top of what's already there (threads) is negligible, and it's very pricey. Not only do abstractions differ in benefits and costs in general, those costs differ considerably depending on the platform. > We can think of it as just delaying and forcing function calls Delaying a "plain IO" operation is no different (in fact, it's identical) to just using a thread. The abstraction is already built in. The laziness of Haskell is a dual to (blocking) threads, and threads are already well supported. There's no need to replace them, especially if doing so severely harms your ability for posthoc reasoning (I'd say that even Haskell sacrifices posthoc reasoning for apriori reasoning, which is a wrong choice for most uses; but that's doubly worse on the JVM, which already has a lot of powerful tooling in place for working imperatively).
Posted by pron on Apr 30, 2015, 2:35 AM
Tags
Related issues
- The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
- The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
- (My comment is about detached houses).
- The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
- > steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
- Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.7,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (Other)
The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
(My comment is about detached houses).
The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
> steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
> our Git monorepo was developing an annoying problem Sentences like this are so common from people using monorepos that I am convinced ...
Why is there no contact form?
> For the same reason you might pay to use a typed language, when an untyped language is more general.
> For the same reason you might pay to use a typed language, when an untyped language is more general. Or why you might pay for encapsulation, when globals are more general. Or why you might pay for structured programming, when GOTOs are more general. Or why you might pay for a VM, when machine code is more general. And so on. Not all abstractions are created equal, and while all the other ones you mention do have some costs, they are dwarfed by the benefits; they're bargains. This one? I'd say it's overpriced junk (though it's pretty junk). The expressiveness it buys on top of what's already there (threads) is negligible, and it's very pricey. Not only do abstractions differ in benefits and costs in general, those costs differ considerably depending on the platform. > We can think of it as just delaying and forcing function calls Delaying a "plain IO" operation is no different (in fact, it's identical) to just using a thread. The abstraction is already built in. The laziness of Haskell is a dual to (blocking) threads, and threads are already well supported. There's no need to replace them, especially if doing so severely harms your ability for posthoc reasoning (I'd say that even Haskell sacrifices posthoc reasoning for apriori reasoning, which is a wrong choice for most uses; but that's doubly worse on the JVM, which already has a lot of powerful tooling in place for working imperatively).
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.