The dumb marketing label lowers the credibility that I'll expect to find good science in it. It in no way defines what the actual scientific credibility should be though.
With dozens of agents running at a time, it must cost $1000's to build anything non-trivial. Is there a business model behind this project, or is he just made of money?
This is an interesting concept, but it is presented so abstractly as to be opaque to even most functional programmers, I think.
The basic idea, as I understand it, is a typeclass that is more powerful than an applicative, but still less powerful than a monad, called a "selective applicative". I would summarize them like this:
* Applicative: Fixed computation graph, but no conditional structure.
* Selective applicative: Fixed computation graph with some conditional "branches".
* Monad: Dynamic computation graph and control flow, can generate new structure on the fly.
I'm sure I'm still missing a lot, but I think that's the 10,000 foot view.
That matches what I managed to glean, though I didn't get much further.
It started making more sense though when I managed to fully understand the AST comparison that was being made. Specifically, this approach lets you do the LISPy "code is data" thing where you can construct your program within your program and then run it, but instead does it via "data is execution+control-flow". Thus gaining the benefits of static analysis on the constructed program since you wrote it all out in the "normal"/static order rather than the "nested"/dynamic view of a program that monads give.
At least that's the gist I got, though take it with a grain of salt, the article went very over my head at times.
In this particular case, Hughes’ arrows are a practical implementation of a Profunctor Categorical Structure. They are roughly a generalization of what arrows (as in function types or more accurately relations) are.
In the article, author is pointing out that the selective applicative doesn’t seem to work correctly (in a categorical sense) for functions, but when generalizing to profunctors a near semi-ring structure appears and works for the SApplicative.
I am pretty sure I’m reading TFA correctly here, but I’ll check when off mobile and edit if I still can.
I had a client like this. It was easy work, easy money, even if a bit delayed.
After one such "non-payment" incident, the next time they needed something they basically offered xx hours of payment for 15 minutes of work to get back on my good side. In general they'd end up "overpaying" for each project to make up for their tardiness in paying.
Makes sense, I guess it comes down to how you use your phone, if it's your primary high fidelity music listening device, then you would totally need an audio jack. My guess is simply that that's the minority of people.
They need to pay more if the US wants to avoid becoming an aristocracy. The top 1%’s share of income is growing rapidly, while the bottom 90%’s share is shrinking.
reply